1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3852 OF 2009 (Executive Engineer, PWD, ZP & Anr. vs. Rohidas Shankar Fulzele & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 25, 2009. Heard finally Shri Mokadam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dhok, Advocate holding for Shri Bade, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondent No. 2. The contention of Shri Mokadam, learned counsel is that Respondent was working under EGS which is not an industry and hence proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were not maintainable. He further states that Respondent No. 1 worked only for 3½ months and as he did not accept amount of Rs.7,890/- i.e. salary for the said period, the amount was required to be deposited in the account of respondent No.1. He also invites attention to cross examination of Respondent No.1 to show that at one place the said respondent accepted that his work was closed after 17.05.2004. According to him, all these vital aspects are not looked into by the learned Labour Court. He further argues that as the very entitlement of Respondent No.1 was in dispute, jurisdiction under 2 Section 33C(2) of the Act was not available in his favour. The learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.2 supports the argument of the petitioners. Shri Dhok, learned counsel states that the documents executed in favour of respondent No.1 were available with the petitioners and those documents were not produced. I find that in the impugned judgment, the Labour Court has not considered certain vital aspects which Shri Mokadam, learned counsel for the petitioners is trying to raise before this Court. Similarly, the present petitioners as also Respondent No.2 have in their reply contended that the employee worked only for 3½ months. The employee appears to have stated that work was closed on 17.05.2004. What is the exact implication of that admission, has not been brought on record by further cross examining him. The exact period of service of Respondent No.1 cannot be the matter of oral evidence and as documents are available with the petitioners, those documents could have been produced by them before the Labour Court. The contention that Respondent No.1 did not issue any notice to produce document in this respect is misconceived. In view of these observations and findings, the judgment dated 08.05.2009 cannot be sustained, the same is quashed and set aside. However, the same is subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the petitioners to Respondent No.1 by 15th December 2009. 3 The proceedings in Application IDA No. 2 of 2008 restored to the file of Labour Court, Chandrapur, for taking fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity to lead additional evidence, if they deem it necessary to do so. The parties to appear before the said Court on 15th December 2009. The cost can be paid by the petitioners to Respondent No.1 before the said Court on the same date. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE *GS.