1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 31/2010. ( Manoj Vitthalrao Shrirao -: versus :- The Executive Engineer and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2010. Heard Shri N.S. Warulkar, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondents. Petitioner is not in a position to point out the exact language of reference made to the Labour Court. The contention is petitioner was first terminated in 1988 and thereafter in 1991 award was delivered by the Labour Court, that a reference before it was only in relation to termination dated 10.11.1991. The Labour Court has after appreciation of evidence found that petitioner could not establish his continuous service from 1986 to 1991. It further found that on the strength of musters produced before it, he worked from September 1987 to December 1988 and his total working days during this period were 74. 2 Learned Counsel for petitioner states that witness for respondent has accepted that petitioner worked from 1986 to 1991. Perusal of the cross examination on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel shows that the witness Shri Hedau, has stated that petitioner was in service from 1986 till 31.08.1988, and thereafter he was again employed in the year 1991 i.e. on 10.08.1991 and again he was terminated. This evidence does not establish continuous service from 1986 to 1991. Petitioner has not examined any body else to prove his service during this period. Learned counsel has urged that adverse inference ought to have been drawn, however, necessary facts has not been placed on record for drawing such adverse inference. In the circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.