1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3350 OF 2008 (Divisional Forest Officer & Anr. vs. Rafique Mohammed Muhabb & 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. DECEMBER 11, 2008. Heard Shri Kothari, learned AGP for the petitioners and Shri Naukarkar, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents were in service from 16.4.1993 till termination of their services on 25.2.1999 with effect from 31.3.1999. It appears that the respondents also alleged that they were orally terminated from 14.4.1999. The parties adduced evidence before the Labour Court and Labour Court found that services from 16.4.1993 as Chowkidar were proved and completion of 240 days was also established on record. The Labour Court, however, found that the retrenchment compensation as offered was short and it relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Purna Theatre vs. State of West Bengal & Ors ., reported at 1998 (1) CLR 912, to hold that short payment of compensation vitiated the retrenchment. In this background, the learned AGP 2 points out that the contention of the petitioners was that basically both the respondents were employees under Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and he further states that as relevant records could not be traced out and produced before the Labour Court, this Court on 14.8.2008 gave time to the petitioners to produce records. He states that the records are being searched even today. He argues that short payment of retrenchment compensation is not sufficient to grant relief of reinstatement and in any case, the nature of employment was EGS. He states that in the absence of records, the Labour Court could not have held that the payment of retrenchment compensation is short and he further argues that why it is termed as short, is nowhere discussed by the Labour Court. Shri Naukarkar, learned counsel points out that the said findings recorded by the Labour Court are confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court vide its judgment dated 01.09.2007. He points out that claim of continuous service of the respondents was established on record and therefore the compensation was found to be short. He further states that the Court below has further found that after the termination of the respondents, the work continued and the persons junior to them were 3 continued on that work. In the circumstances, it is apparent that even if the controversy in relation to correctness or otherwise of the retrenchment compensation amount is left aside, the very fact that the work continued and their juniors were retained, clearly shows that the termination of present respondents constituted unfair labour practice under Schedule IV, item I of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The findings are not demonstrated to be erroneous or perverse. In the circumstances, even if the records are produced, at the most the petitioners will be in a position to demonstrate that the respondents did not render 240 days of continuous service. However, that does not mean that their juniors could have been retained in service. Therefore, when this Court permitted production of records, vide order dated 14.8.2008, for more than four months, the records have not been traced, I am not inclined to grant any further opportunity. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter as reinstatement given by the Labour Court is without any back wages. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.