-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1022 OF 2009 Mr.Lalchand Yadav & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. M/s.Mukesh Dye Works & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.I.R.Kulkarni for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : MARCH 04, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioners has challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 30.9.2008 dismissing their complaint under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. According to the petitioners, the undertaking changed ownership from one employer to the other and the 18 respondents have indulged into unfair labour practice and were responsible for payment of wages to the complainants and other workers since February 2005. After evidence was led and the matter was heard, the learned Industrial Court came to the conclusion as follows:- "Thus it reflects if we perused and scrutinised each and every document which is there on record along with respective various orders passed in the present -: 2 :- proceeding and the documents it cannot be said that as like the res. No.1 to 15 at no point of time the res. No.16, 17 & 18 was also running the business like the said respondents. Apart from that no where it has come on record that the complainants were in the employment of the said respondents and to prove the said fact the complainants have not taken any efforts i.e. to prove the employer and employee relationship between the complainants and the res. No.16, 17 & 18 on the basis of which the interim relief was rejected to the complainants against the said respondents i.e. res. No.16, 17 & 18 and the said order was categorically confirmed along with the findings by the Hon’ble Lordship of our High Court. Thus now as it is a case of the complainants in the entire oral and documentary evidence and also the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant they have no claim of what so ever nature regarding legal dues on and from February 2005 onwards against the res. No.1 to 15. Hence considering the said categorical submission at the bar by the Ld. Counsel for the complainants and in the oral evidence by the complainants there is no question of granting any relief as such against the res. No.1 to 15. Considering the facts and interim relief order and Hon’ble Lordship’s order in the respective writ petition and in the entire course of the litigation i.e. oral and documentary evidence no where it reflects that at any point of time there is or was any employer-employee relationship exists between the present complaints (sic) and the res. No.16, 17 & 18. Apart from that the complainants also failed to prove that at any point of time the respondents 16, 17 & 18 were also running identical business activities like the res. No.1 to 15. Hence for the reasons and considering the facts which are there on record and the ratio developed by Apex Court, it cannot be said that the complainants have proved the case of unfair labour practice as alleged in the complaint against the res. No.16, 17 & 18." -: 3 :- 2. Thus, the Industrial Court has observed that there was no evidence, oral or documentary, from which the petitioners’ claim for employment and wages against the respondents has been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Industrial Court has not referred to any particular document while observing that the documents do not show employment of the petitioners. On a query from this Court whether there was any document at all which, according to the petitioners, showed that they were in employment and were entitled to wages, the learned counsel fairly stated that such a document was not there. Apparently, there is no oral evidence either. 3. In the circumstances, the order of the Industrial Court cannot be interfered with. Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. S.A. BOBDE, J.