1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6711 OF 2006 Shri. Vallabh Press ....Petitioner. Versus Narayan Vishwanath Kamlu (Sawaji) ....Respondent. Shri. V.R. Mundada , Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.M.M. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order rendered by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in reference I.D.A. case No. 21/1997. By the impugned order dated 27.3.2006 the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. It was case of the respondent that he was working as compositer in the printing press of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.1981. He alleged that the petitioner 2 illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 1.6.1996. The reference was made before the Deputy Commissioner, Labour Court under section 10(1)(c) read with 10(e) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the dispute. The respondent examined himself and adduced oral evidence of P.W. 2 Manikrao Udawant who also was allegedly working with the petitioner. It was contention of the petitioner that the respondent was not employed nor the printing press was in existence in 1981. It was further contended that due to slack of business, the printing press was closed since 1992 and the sole proprietor thereof shifted to Ahmednager alongiwth the relatives. Thus, it was contended that there was no occasion for termination of the services of the respondent. 3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the employee employer relationship was proved by the respondent and his services were illegally terminated. Mr. Mundada would submit that the respondent utterly failed to prove the employment as a compositor w.e.f. 1.6.1981. He would submit that the termination of the respondent in 1996 is not possible because in 1992 the business of the press was closed down by the petitioner. These are disputed questions of fact. The respondent adduced oral and documentary evidence so as to indicate his employment with the petitioner. Not only that there is oral evidence of P.W. 2 Manikrao Udawant, but there are certain letters which were produced on record to show that the address of the respondent was given as care of the petitioner. The petitioner did not adduce any 3 evidence to shown that the petitioner firm was not functioning in 1981. The respondent placed on record the proof photograph of the co-workers of the petitioner printing press along with the proprietor which was snapped on occasion of "Dasara Pooja" at the premises of the petitioner. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has duly considered the relevant events. No perversity is noticed. The cancellation of registration is sought to be pleaded. Mere cancellation of the registration certificate of the printing press cannot be regarded as proof of the closure of the entire business as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to produced income tax return, relevant documents pertaining to closure of the entire business etc. Considering the involvement of disputed questions of fact, I deem it appropriate to decline from exercising the supervisory jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the result, the petition is dismissed. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. ] ssc/wp6711.06