Municipal Council, Wardha ... vs Sunil Janardhan Tenpe
2023 Latest Caselaw 2878 Bom

                                                           1                                 37-wp-2239-2019.odt



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2239/2019

                                        Municipal Council, Wardha
                                                   Vs.
                                         Sunil Janardhan Tenpe

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or     directions and
Registrar's orders

                                   Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for petitioner
                                   Mr. A.J. Salway, Advocate for Respondent


                                   CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2023

Heard Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Salwary, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petition challenges the judgment dated 22/01/2014 (page 36) passed by the learned Labor Court, holding that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practice in terminating the respondent from his employment by an oral order dated 19/01/2012 and directing reinstatement. The revision there-against, has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court by the judgment dated 12/02/2019 (page 14).

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record to establish that the respondent had worked for the

2 37-wp-2239-2019.odt

period of 240 days, during the period, he was admittedly employed with the petitioner. It is contended that the respondent was working for the duration with the petitioner from 30/7/1994 to 29/12/1995 and during that period, he had actually worked only for 153 days. It is contended, that the petitioner was again appointed during the period 26/03/1996 to 28/05/1996, during which period he has worked for 64 days. The plea regarding the respondent having worked with the petitioner for 240 days is stated in the complaint. In his evidence also, the respondent has categorical stated that he has worked for the entire period commencing from 30/7/1994 to 29/12/1995 with the petitioner. To controvert this, though the entire material was available with the petitioner from the evidence of DW1 except for a bare statement, it is apparent that nothing has been placed on record. In absence of which, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is therefore, without any merit and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

MP Deshpande