-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS PATENT PATENT PATENT APPEAL NO.259 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.259 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.259 OF 2006 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.1064 OF 1997 NO.1064 OF 1997 NO.1064 OF 1997 Shyam R. Sutar ...Appellant v/s M/s Bombay Textile Research Association and anr. ...Respondents Mr S.N. Deshpande for Appellant. Mr P.M. Palshikar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND V.M. KANADE JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 24th April 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.1064 of 1997. By that order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the award made by the Labour Court, Thane rejecting the claim made by the appellant. The appellant had made the claim against respondent No.1 that his retrenchment was contrary to the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found that the appellant has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in twelve months preceding the date of his retrenchment. The finding recorded by the Labour Court, Thane was confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that an application was made for production of the muster register maintained by the respondent No.1 - Company for recording presence of permanent workers and temporary workers as also production of salary slips. The employer produced muster register of permanent workers and did not produce any register maintained for recording presence of temporary workers. The learned -3- counsel submits that from this conduct of the employer, an adverse inference should have been drawn by the Labour Court, Thane. According to the learned counsel, oral deposition of the appellant worker coupled with the conduct of the employer of not producing the relevant documents would show that the appellant has made out his case that he has completed 240 days in the twelve months preceding the retrenchment. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. We have gone through the record. 2. Perusal of the award of the Labour Court, shows that the Labour Court has considered deposition as also documentary evidence in detail and has recorded a finding that the appellant workman has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days during the period of twelve months preceding the retrenchment. According to the learned counsel appearing for appellant, this finding of fact is perverse. We therefore went through the entire deposition of both the witnesses, deposition of appellant workman and the witness examined on behalf of the employer. We find that the finding recorded by the Labour Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be perverse because there is definite evidence on record. The Labour Court was perfectly justified in saying that the evidence produced on record by the appellant is not enough to record a positive finding in favour of the -4- appellant. In our opinion, the said finding is justified and is in consonance with the record. We have also found that the learned Single Judge is right in confirming that decision. In lour opinion, there is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. The letters patent appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( V.M. KANADE J.)