1 W.P.No.4308.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4308 OF 2010 Heena Apparels ... Petitioner v/s Shri Inayat Rehman ... Respondent Mr.A.S.Peerzada for the petitioner. Mr.I.A. Saiyeed for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 11TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against the award by which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,42,000/- to the respondent. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent abandoned his service and that he had raised an industrial dispute without any cause. The dispute regarding the reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court has believed the case of the workman and has held that he was terminated from service with effect from 19.6.2000. The Labour Court has found that 2 W.P.No.4308.10 the petitioner had forged the muster roll in order to show that the workman was absent from 1.6.2000. The Labour Court observed that the workman had expressed in his cross- examination that he was aiding his brother in stitching clothes as both of them were tailors. However, he was not gainfully employed in any concern or for that matter with his brother. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he used to earn about Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per day on an average for clothes stitched by him. 2. The Labour Court has, in my opinion, rightly held that the petitioner had illegally terminated the services of the respondent workman and that he ought to be reinstated. However, the Labour Court on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the concern was closed, has not directed that the respondent be reinstated in service. Instead it has awarded compensation and back wages. The back wages have been computed as Rs.1,32,000/- on the basis of the salary drawn by the workman. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that back wages ought not to have been awarded as the workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he was drawing certain amounts from the work done with his brother. Mr.Saiyed appearing for the respondent has rightly relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Haushala 3 W.P.No.4308.10 Prasad Brijmohan Mishra v/s M/s.Noble Paints & Varnish Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2002 Lab.I.C. 2137, wherein it has been held that merely because the workman helps his son in a shop run by his son during the period when he was out of service, it cannot be treated as a gainful employment. This judgment, in my opinion, squarely covers this case. The other judgment relied on by the learned advocate for the respondent is the case of Chhotelal Badriprasad Yadav, Akola v/s Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai 7 ors., reported in 2006 III C.L.R. 946. In this judgment, the Division Bench has relied on an earlier judgment in the case of Progressive Education Society, reported in 2006 (4) Mah. L.J. 747 and others, and held that the workman is entitled to back wages when the order of termination was illegal. 3. In my opinion, the Labour Court has considered all aspects of the matter in their proper perspective. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are not perverse and, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Writ petition rejected. ..... 4 W.P.No.4308.10 5 W.P.No.4308.10