1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3945/2010 (Gajanan B. Wahane VERSUS M/s E.P.E.S. Thermarab (I) 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 M.V. Mohokar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.R. Patil, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 3 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 04.12.2008 dismissing a complaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent under the provisions of Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 seeking a declaration that the respondent had committed unfair labour practice under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. It was the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was working with the respondent since long, his services were not regularized and he was also not paid regular wages. It was the case of the petitioner that the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the Factories Act were also violated by the respondent. The respondent filed the written statement and denied that the petitioner was a person working with the 2 respondent since past six to seven years, as alleged. It was pleaded by the respondent that the respondent had started a small unit in the year 1995 and was running it with great difficulty because of the recession in the business. The respondent denied that the respondent had not paid the minimum wages to the petitioner and had also not followed the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the Factories Act. The respondent lastly pleaded that the respondent was suffering losses in the business and the complaint filed by the petitioner being false and vexatious, was liable to be dismissed. On a perusal of the evidence on record, the Industrial Court, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 04.12.2008 rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner could not have been regularized in service and reinstated in view of the fact that the respondent had closed the unit since 01.01.2002 as it was suffering losses. The Industrial Court then held that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence on record to establish that minimum wages were not paid to the petitioner. The Industrial Court found that the necessary documents in this regard were not produced by the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner was retrenched by giving him retrenchment compensation, gratuity, leave wages, etc. and at the time of receiving it, no grievance had been made by the petitioner. Since the petitioner had failed to prove his case about non-compliance of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the other Acts, the Industrial Court rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 3 The findings recorded by the Industrial Court are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that it was admitted by the witness of the respondent in his cross-examination that the demands raised in Exhibit 24-C could not have been fulfilled but, some of them have been fulfilled, was not considered by the Industrial Court and, hence, the order passed by the Industrial Court is liable to be set aside, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. From a perusal of Exhibit 24-C, it is clear that several demands were made by the workers and it is admitted in the cross-examination of the respondent’s witness that some of the demands had been fulfilled and some of them could not have been fulfilled. It is not the admission of the respondent’s witness, that some of the demands have not been fulfilled in spite of the fact that they could be fulfilled, in law. The said admission did not have much bearing on the issue involved in the case and, hence, the non-consideration of the same is not enough for interfering with the judgment passed by the Industrial Court. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE