(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1153 OF 2011 Parner Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Post : Devibhoire, Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar (Through its General Manager), and another. .. Petitioners. versus Yewale Lahanu Natha, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, R/o. Parner, S.S.K. Kamgar Wasahat, 1(B), Devibhoire, Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar, and 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.R. Kale, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Kale, holding for Adv. Joshi, for the petitioner / management, and Adv. Barde, for the respondents. 2. The Labour Court has found that the petitioner / management has failed to prove its story of absconding and has therefore, granted relief of reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner / management is not in a position to point out that said finding of Labour Court is erroneous or perverse. The attendance register showing the continuation of name of respondent / employee even after alleged date of oral termination are not filed on record. The Labour Court has relied upon evidence of one Security Guard who was examined by respondent to bring on record the fact of oral termination. Adv. Kale contends that the said security guard was not in the employment on the relevant date. 3. The Labour Court has applied its mind to relevant evidence and hence its finding is neither erroneous nor perverse. The said finding is maintained by the Industrial Court in revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The judgment of Industrial Court has not been challenged in the (3) Writ Petition. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1153