1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2660 OF 1995. (JAIDEO UDEBHAN BAHADURE Vs PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR J. DATED : APRIL 29, 2008. 1. None appears when the matter is called out. 2. The matter pertains to the year 1995 for which reason it will have to proceed forthwith. 3. This petition takes exception to the award passed by Labour Court dated 30th May, 1995 in reference No.30/1983. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour referred the following dispute for adjudication : “Shri J.U. Bahadure who has been terminated from the employment of Sub-Ex. Engineer, B & C Department, Wardha should be reinstated with payment of back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 12.3.1984.” 2 4. The Labour Court on analysing the evidence on record has found as of fact that the petitioner had served the respondent only between 20th March, 1983 to 30th October, 1983, for total 120 days as a Watchman. That fact has been admitted by the petitioner in the evidence and substantiated from the contents of application Exh.22. On that finding the Labour Court proceeded to hold that the petitioner would not be entitled to benefit under Section 25-F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has placed reliance on the decision reported at 1994 I CLR 207 (G. Yadei Reddy Vs. Brooke Bond India Ltd.) in support of that view. 5. After going through the deposition of the petitioner, I see no reason to depart from the view taken by the Labour Court. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court is substantiated from the said evidence. To wit, I would straightway advert to the cross-examination which reads, thus : “.... It is mentioned in my application Exh.22 that I was on work from 25.03.1983 to 30.10.1983, but it is not correct. I cannot assign any reason as to why I have not mentioned correct dates in Ex.22. It is not true 3 to say that I have worked only for 120 days, i.e. from 25.3.1983 to 30.10.1983. I do not remember whether I have worked only for 12 days in August 83. It is true that in October 1983 I have worked only for 8 days, i.e. from 21.10.1983 to 30.10.1983. I received wages for the period for which I have actually worked. I have signed muster after I received wages. It is not true to say that I never worked from the year 1982 till the year 1984...” 6. Suffice it to observe that the view taken by the Labour Court is neither perverse nor manifestly erroneous, nor can be said to have caused serious miscarriage of justice. The finding of fact, so recorded by the Labour Court, will be binding on this Court. On the said finding, the conclusion reached by the Labour Court in answering the reference against the petitioner cannot be faulted. The petition is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed. JUDGE RR.