: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2768 OF 2008 M/s.Western India Garments Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Damodar B.Kadam & Anr. ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2769 OF 2008 M/s.Western India Garments Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Anant V. Khanvilkar & Anr. ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2770 OF 2008 M/s.Western India Garments Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Bhagwat R. Prajapati & Anr. ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2771 OF 2008 M/s.Western India Garments Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Baban V. Sarat & another ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2772 OF 2008 M/s.Western India Garments Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Ramu K. Dangiet and another ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2773 OF 2008 M/s.Western India Garments Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Alka R. Raut & another ....Respondents WITH : 2 : WRIT PETITION NO.2774 OF 2008 M/s.Western India Garments Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Vasant B. Vasargaonkar & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.S.K. Talsania, Senior Counsel with Mr.Ajit S. Karawande for the Petitioners. Ms.Rita Joshi for the Respondents. (In all matters) Mr.J.S. Saluja, A.G.P. for the State in Writ Petition Nos.2768 of 2008 and 2769 of 2008. Ms.Mugdha Jadhav, A.G.P. for the State in Writ Petition Nos.2771 of 2008 and 2772 of 2008. Ms.I. Calcuttawala, A.G.P. for the State in Writ Petition No.2770 of 2008. Mr.Raju Mane, A.G.P. for the State in Writ Petition Nos.2773 of 2008 and 2774 of 2008. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. It is agreed between the counsel that the order in Writ Petition No.2768 of 2008 would govern the result in all the Writ Petitions. They are accordingly disposed of by this common order. 2. The impugned order, passed by the 3rd Labour Court in a Reference, directs the Petitioner to reinstate Respondent No.1 with full backwages and continuity of service. The issues before the Labour Court were whether the first Respondent proved that : 3 : the Petitioner had illegally terminated him from service with effect from 30.4.1999 ; whether the first Respondent proved that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year just prior to the termination and whether the first Respondent is entitled to get the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 2.8.1999. The issues have been answered in the affirmative in the first Respondent’s favour. 3. The Petitioner’s case is that on 24.8.1999, it had closed down its business. However, to avoid commercial litigation from the prospective buyers,it had no alternative but to start manufacturing activities on a temporary basis to complete the work in hand. It is further contended that on completion of such work, it completely closed down the manufacturing activities with effect from 10.7.2000. Thereafter and to date, it has not restarted the manufacturing activities. Further according to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 had voluntarily left its services in August, 1999 realizing that the Petitioner did not have much work. 4. The Labour Court has found that the first Respondent had established that he worked for 240 days with the Petitioner. This finding is based on the : 4 : evidence including the oral evidence. The findings are purely on facts. I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Nor am I inclined to interfere with the finding that the termination was wrongful. Admittedly, there was no show cause notice or any other action taken to discontinue the Petitioner’s employment. In fact the question does not arise as the Petitioner’s case is that the first Respondent voluntarily left the employment. The impugned order records that the Petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that the first Respondent tendered his resignation after accepting the legal dues on 3.8.1999. This again is a finding of fact based on an appreciation of the evidence and I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 5. Mr.Talsania however, submitted that in any event,there was no justification for ordering reinstatement as the manufacturing activities of the Petitioner had completely closed down atleast with effect from 10.7.2000. Thereafter there were only two employees. The finding in this regard is essentially again one of fact. 6. It is true that the issue of closure has been dealt with only very briefly in paragraph 32 of the impugned order which reads as under :- : 5 : "32. Though it is tried to submit by first party that the manufacturing activities of first party were finally closed with effect from 25.8.1999 but this closure is not established by leading sufficient evidence. Moreover the deposition of the witness of the first party does not inspire any confidence to place reliance on its considering the admissions given by him in the corss-examination. Thus the first party failed to show that the manufacturing activities are finally closed." 7. Ms.Joshi, submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned order in this regard as no issue regarding closure had been raised and the Petitioner had not raised any grievance about the fact that no issue had been raised. 8. I will presume however in favour of the Petitioner that no issue having been raised does not disentitle the Petitioner from raising the contention. Admittedly, the pleadings do contain averments regarding the closure. The oral evidence also deals with this aspect. The parties were therefore aware that the issue of closure had been raised and was to be dealt with. 9. While I see the force in Mr.Talsania’s submission that this aspect has not been dealt with in detail, considering the facts of the present case I am : 6 : not inclined to interfere with the order. 10. The learned Member found the evidence of the Petitioners not to inspire any confidence. The conclusion is not absurd or perverse. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not know whether the Petitioner used to export garments as per the quota allotted by A.E.P.C. He stated that he did not know the turn-over of the company inter-alia in the year 1999-2000. He further submitted that one Dinesh Vora was looking after the accounts section. The said Dinesh Vora was not examined. He would have been in a position to state whether or not there were any manufacturing activities after July, 2000. The accounts would have been relevant in this regard. They were not produced. The relevant witness was therefore not examined. 11. The Petitioner’s witness admitted in his cross-examination which was conducted in the year 2008 that the factory licence and the B.M.C. licence obtained in the year 1976 had been renewed every year to date. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there would be a justifiable inference of the manufacturing activities having continued in view of the factory licence having been renewed to date. It was not the Petitioner’s case that the factory : 7 : licence had been renewed only as a matter of course or through inadvertence. There was no re-examination. 12. The Petitioner’s witness also admitted that there is a show-room inside the factory and the garments were displayed therein. He further stated that he did not know the reason for displaying the garments in the show-room. He stated that he did not know whether garments were displayed in the show-room to attract the customers. This was a relevant consideration. The witness stated that he does not even know how many orders he had received from the customers. . The witness not having offered an explanation, it was not open to the Petitioner to offer an explanation through his counsel across the bar. It was contended that the garments displayed were only in respect of the export business. 13. Further the Petitioner’s witness stated that he was unaware of the business activities of the Petitioner. 14. What is surprising is that he stated that he is unaware of the contents of paragraph 4 of his own affidavit. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit contains : 8 : various statements regarding the workload from time to time, the financial difficulties faced due to the recession in textile industries and about the alleged closure. Thus he has failed to prove closure even in his examination in chief. Moreover the witness has thus not been able to answer any questions in cross-examination relevant to the closure. 15. I am in respectful agreement that this evidence cannot inspire any confidence. 16. There was no re-examination. The best evidence was obviously held back. The admissions especially regarding the factory licence have not been explained. 17. In the circumstances, all the above Writ Petitions are dismissed. The impugned order shall remain stayed upto 30.4.2009.