1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5896/2010 (Sanjay H. Singh VERSUS M/s Superior Drinks Pvt. Ltd.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Vikram P. Marpakwar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Almelkar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 24 , 2011 . Heard. It appears that the Second Labour Court, Nagpur rightly answered the reference in the negative and held that the petitioner was not entitled for reinstatement in service with payment of full back wages and continuity in service as the petitioner had failed to lead evidence in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court should take a lenient view of the matter and remand the matter to the Labour Court for granting an opportunity to the petitioner to lead oral evidence as he had failed to tender evidence as his counsel did not inform him that the matter is posted for evidence of the petitioner on the particular dates. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent and it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had abandoned the service of the respondent and it was not a case of termination. Since the petitioner failed to remain present on various dates on which the matter was posted for evidence before the Labour Court, it is submitted 2 on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had the tendency of abandoning the matters. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Labour Court had rightly answered the reference in the negative in the absence of any oral evidence and this Court may not show any indulgence in exercise of the writ jurisdiction on the stray statement of the petitioner, in this petition, about his failure to remain present before the Labour Court because of the absence of communication of the dates, on which the matter was posted for evidence, by the counsel. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Labour Court was justified in answering the reference in the negative, in the absence of any evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner has not pointed out, on which dates the matter was posted for evidence before the Labour Court and on how many occasions he failed to remain present and this shows that the petitioner was surely negligent in prosecuting the case. It is not stated in the petition as to on how many occasions, the petitioner contacted his counsel to enquire about the stage of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. In such circumstances, it is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent that the order passed by the Labour Court calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE