WP/2497/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2497 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Smt.Balabai Shivaji Suryavanshi ... Respondent Ms.M.P. Thakur, AGP, for Petitionerss Mr.Neel Helekar for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 08.09.2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the award passed by the Labour Court, Ratnagiri in Reference (IDA) No.226 of 2002. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was given work as and when work was available and that she was employed only on a temporary basis. The petitioners have also contended that since no work was available, they were not able to provide the respondent any work and, therefore, the question of termination of respondent's services did not arise. 2. The matter has been adjourned on several occasions only in order to give an opportunity to the petitioners to file an affidavit indicating as to why the muster book and salary book which the petitioners were directed to produce before the Labour Court had not been produced and instead was being sought to be produced before WP/2497/2010 : 2 : this Court. Despite the adjournment granted, no affidavit has come forth and the learned AGP expressed her helplessness in filing the necessary affidavit for want of instructions from the officers concerned. On earlier occasions, the matter was adjourned since the delay in filing the petition for over 2 years had not been satisfactorily explained in the writ petition and, therefore, the affidavit was called for explaining that delay. 3. I have perused a copy of the award. In my view, there is no perversity in the award which requires interference from this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Labour Court has observed that despite an order passed on 1.9.2004 directing the petitioners to produce the muster book and salary book before the Court. On a request made by the respondent, the petitioners chose not to produce the same. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record has held that the termination of the respondent from service was illegal. The petitioners had not followed the provisions of section 25F nor 25G. In these circumstances, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement to the respondent on the post where she was serving. In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the award requiring interference. 4. Petition rejected.