( 1 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, since we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and the award in I. D. No. 350 of 1993 dated 24/08/1995 and propose to remit the matter to the Labour Court for re-hearing of the case and disposal of the same in accordance with law, we do not intend to express ourselves in respect of all such matters which are to he gone mto in the proceeding and in respect of which, Labour Court as well as learned single Judge in W. P. No. 30081 of 1995 has recorded some findings.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner-appellant worked under the second and third respondents, who represent the Hyderabad Metro Water Works and Sewerage Board. When she was removed from service and she raised Industrial Dispute, one of the pleas to be decided was whether she worked for a continuous period of 240 days and in view of that, she was entitled to be retained in service until action was taken in accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, Learned Single Judge has observed as follows :"the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no evidence whatsoever was produced by the respondent and no material was made available by the respondents before the Labour Court. It is submitted that the respondent-Board ought to have made available the record maintained by it in this regard. I express my inability to agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as it is for the petitioner to prove her case by producing the necessary material in support of her case and it is not for the respondents to prove the case of the petitioner. At any rate, the record does not disclose that any such effort was made by the petitioner to get any record summoned from the custody of the respondents. In such view of the matter, I cannot interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at by the 15 Tribunal. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing prevents this Court in issuing appropriate directions to the respondent-Board to consider the case of the petitioner, in case if any recruitment is to be made for future vacancies that may arise. The mere fact that the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner for re-instatement into service would not disentitle her from being considered for the appointment, if any, for future vacancies in accordance with law. "

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant has been working as a Sweeper under the control of the third respondent and she is an illiterate woman. Courts in India have on the rule of evidence enshrined in Secs. 101 and 102 in Chapter 7 of the Evidence Act, have taken the view that pardanashin women belonging to some communities as well as illiterate women, for the reason that they transact their business generally through malefolk only, that men always dominated women and that this being the curse always surrounding wonienfolk even though law recognised their independent rights, is challenged to the extent of the application of the principle of non estfactum. A brief history of the rule of non est factum, scriptwn predictum non estfactum sum is narrated by one of us in a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in K. Vardhan v. Pattammal (died) andfour others 1992 LW 209. The rule in this behalf is called out in the said judgrnent as follows :"non estfactum, scrotum predictum non est factum sum assumed great significance in course of time. In Cheshire and Fifoot s Law of Contract Tenth Edition at page 229 the principle is found stated and the learned single Judge has also noted this : "in the course of its development this plea of non estfactum was made available to a defendant who could not read, whether Owing to illiteracy or blindness, so as to enable him to escape liability upon proof that the written terms of the deed did not correspond with its effects as explained to him before he put his seal to it. In 1952, for instance, in Thoroughgood s case 1582 Res 9a,. W

Click Here to Read the rest of this document