ORAL JUDGMENT : - The petitioner has challenged an Award dated 21st March, 1998, passed by the First Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 919 of 1988 and also the order of Review dated 16th April, 2003 in Misc. (Review) Application (IDA) No. 72 of 1998 by which a Reference sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Mumbai, under section 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "ID Act") for adjudication of a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents over the demand of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 25th November, 1987, was rejected. It has been held that the termination of the service of the petitioner was legal.

2. On 19th November, 2003, while admitting the present Writ Petition, this Court observed that "The Petition involves arguable question of law as to whether the provisions of section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act had been complied with and whether the termination of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment."

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had been working with the respondent -company for about three years when the respondent terminated his services on 25th November, 1987, on the ground of irregular attendance and disobedience. As a dispute was raised by the petitioner, the Reference was sent by the Deputy Commissioner before the First Labour Court at Mumbai. Petitioner has filed his Statement of Claim. Respondent appeared and filed its Written Statement and prayed that the Reference should be rejected. After giving one months wages in lieu of notice, the service of the petitioner was terminated from 25th November, 1987. The petitioner did not lead any oral evidence. The respondent -company examined one witness Shri A. D. Agarwal in support of their documentary evidence. It was the companys case that the petitioner had collected his dues and left the job. Both the parties relied on number of authorities. After considering the rival contentions and the fact that the petitioner failed to discharge the initial burden of proof, the Reference was rejected by the impugned order. The petitioner, thereafter preferred a Review Application on 6th August, 1998. By an order dated 16th April, 2003, the same was also rejected. Therefore, the present Petition.

4. In the present case, as per Rule 16 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, after Reference, a due notice was served on the petitioner who, in turn, had filed the Statement of Claim. The petitioner has contended and prayed in the said claim for reinstatement with back wages that the termination was illegal and bad in law. The burden, therefore, lies on the petitioner to prove the case of illegal termination. In the present case, admittedly, in spite of full opportunity given to the petitioner, no evidence was led to prove his allegations. The companys Written Statement and the documents have been duly supported by the evidence of Mr. Agarwal. The company further demonstrated on record the reason for the termination in question, which was taken note of by the Labour Court while rejecting the Reference in question. In absence of any contrary evidence, the allegations and the reason for termination cannot be said to be baseless and false. In the present case, even assuming for a moment that the petitioner failed to lead evidence, still the Court need not pass orders without considering the evidence and/or material of the respondent -company, but after assessing the material placed on the record as the Labour Court was of the view that the order of termination was proper and within the framework of law by following the due procedure of issuing notice, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said finding, specially in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that admittedly no charge -sheet or show cause notice in respect of any statement Annexures A an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document