1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2463 of 2007 (The State of Mah. & ors. Vs. Vasant Bhojraj Rathod) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 16 th October, 2008 By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Labour Court, Yavatmal, on 21/4/2001, partly allowing the complaint filed by the respondent and declaring that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practice. The Labour Court directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity in service, but without back wages. The order passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioners before the Industrial Court in Revision ULP No. 36/2001, but the revision application was also dismissed. The present petition challenges both the orders. Mrs. Wandile, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that both the 2 Courts committed a serious error in holding that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year and hence it was necessary for the petitioners to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Labour Court wrongly added Sundays and other holidays while computing the days of work of the respondent, when the witness for the petitioners had categorically deposed that the respondent had worked only for 200 days in a year. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Courts ought not have drawn an adverse inference against the petitioners for not providing the Muster Roll for the period from September, 1989 to December, 1989, as the Muster Rolls for that period were not available. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was no justifiable cause for accepting the evidence of the respondent and discarding the evidence of the petitioners to grant the reinstatement to the respondent. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that some of the documents 3 were produced on record which showed that the respondent had not worked for 240 days and there was no work available for the respondent after 1989. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since the respondent had not worked for 240 days in a year and was a daily wager, there was no necessity to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mrs. Dixit, the learned counsel for the respondent, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts and submitted that both the Courts rightly appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties on record to hold that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the Courts had rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioners for not producing the Muster Rolls, hand receipts for the year 1989 as well as the Cash Book, though it was admitted by the witness of the petitioners that wages were paid to the workers on Muster Rolls as well as hand receipts. The counsel for the respondent sought for the dismissal of the petition. 4 I have perused both the judgments in detail and have also considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Both the Courts and specially, the Labour Court, have discussed the evidence of the respondent as well as the witness of the petitioners. The Labour Court found that the oral evidence of the respondent was more cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy. It appears that the Labour Court gave more weightage to the evidence of the respondent as nothing was brought out from the cross- examination of the respondent to dislodge his testimony in his examination-in-chief. The Courts also drew an adverse inference against the petitioners and rightly so, for not producing the Muster Rolls, hand receipts and the Cash Book for the relevant years. In this background, the Labour Court rightly held that the petitioners had failed to prove that there was no work available for the respondent after 1989. The Courts further rightly held that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year. The findings recorded by the Courts being pure findings of facts, cannot be 5 interfered with in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constituion of India. Even otherwise, in pursuance of an interim order passed by the Labour Court during the pendency of the complaint, the respondent was permitted to work and is working with the petitioners for a period of more than ten years. Since the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year, it was necessary for the petitioners to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP