Gulab Narayan Tilekar vs D.V. Industries
2001 Latest Caselaw 941 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

1. Heard Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. On the application made by the present appellant, appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The dispute referred was, "Shri Gulab Narayan Tilekar, whose services have been terminated with effect from February 11, 1989 should be reinstated in his original post with full back wages for the intervening idle period and continuity of service."

3. Upon reference being made, the (present appellant (Second party) before the Labour Court filed statement of claim and set up the case that he was working with the respondent herein (first party before the Labour Court) for the last 18 years and was discharging the duties of seat fitting and he was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 465/- per month. The appellant set up the case that his services were wrongly terminated with effect from February 11, 1989. The respondent herein in response to the statement of claim filed reply and denied having employed appellant-second party. In other words the respondent denied the relationship of the employer and employee between the parties. The II Labour Court after taking into consideration the available evidence found that appellant's employment with the respondent was not established and accordingly, rejected appellant's claim. It appears that thereafter, on the basis of the letter received from ESI Corporation and the identity card, the appellant made review application before the concerned Labour Court, The review application was opposed by respondent herein and the concerned Labour Court by order dated December 11, 1995 rejected the review application holding the same to be not maintainable. The appellant then filed the writ petition before this Court. However, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated January 14, 1997. It is this order which is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the basis of The E.S.I, identity card and the letter dated August 14, 1995, the finding recorded by the II Labour Court that there was no relationship of the employer and the employee between the parties was not justified. We are afraid, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents viz. E.S.I, certificate and the letter of E. S. I. Corporation were not produced before the reference Court during the pendenpy of reference, though the appellant did lead oral as well as the documentary evidence. The respondent herein also led evidence. The learned Labour Court observed that the name of the petitioner was not found in the attendance register and, therefore, the case of the appellant that he was employed by the respondent is not established. Not only that the Labour Court has recorded that in the deposition the appellant admitted in cross-examination that he was employed by Shri Alkesteji. The Labour Court has also found that there were many contradictions in the statement of the workman regarding his employment and on perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence, the workman has failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee with the respondent-first party. The overall consideration of the matter by the Labour Court in the matter appears to be based on evidence on record and is not vitiated by any illegality. In this backdrop the learned single Judge cannot be said to have erred in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. On the basis of the documents which were not produced before the reference Court during pendency of reference, the finding recorded by the Labour Court about want of relationship of employer and employee between the parties cannot be rendered illegal.

5. No case for interference in Letters Patent Appeal is made out. Dismissed accordingly. No costs.