By this petition the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the Industrial Court revision against the order dated 27th August, 2004 passed by the Labour Co Mumbai, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent under the Maharas Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices 1971 (for short "the Act") and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with backwages from 1st September, 1998 to 22nd of April, 2002, continuity of service.

2. The petitioner-company has a factory at village Baska, Taluka H District Panchmahal and had its administrative and commercial office Mumbai. The respondent was employed as a peon in the petitioners office Mumbai. The petitioner decided to shift administrative and commercial of including accounts department from Mumbai to its factory at Baska, Dis Panchmahal and put up a notice to that effect on the notice board on 25th Au 1998. The notice stated that the office will be shifted with effect from September, 1998 and all employees should report for duty at the factory at Ba District Panchmahal, who Would be given 2nd class train fair accommodation or house rent allowance in lieu of accommodation. Some of employees joined the work at the transferred place, while others resigned employment and were paid their dues.

3. The respondent neither resigned the service nor joined the work at transferred place. According to the respondent he went for work as usual at Mumbai office on 1st September, 1998 where he was orally told by Managing Director Mr. Patel that his services were terminated. He approach the Union which wrote a letter to the petitioner on 12th September, 1998 which was not replied. The respondent then personally wrote a reminder on February, 1999 which also was not replied. The respondent therefore file complaint before the Labour Court on 17th February, 1999 alleging therein the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice by unlawfully terminating service. He claimed reinstatement with full back wages.

4. The petitioner contested the complaint. It denied that the services of respondent were terminated as alleged by him, and pleaded that the office Mumbai was closed and therefore the services of the respondent were transfer to the companys office at Baska, District Panchmahal. It further pleaded that respondent failed to report for duty at Baska on 1st September though a notice that effect was put up and he was informed about the transfer. The respond had voluntarily not been attending the duties and there was no termination service by the petitioner.

5. During the pendency of the complaint before the Labour Court petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 10th August, 2001 asking him report for duty at Baska, District Panchmahal. The letter further stated that case the respondent failed to comply action will be taken against him. So correspondence ensued between the parties thereafter with each party making allegations against the other . However , the fact remains that the respondent never

joined the petitioners factory at Baska Distric Panchmahal.

6. After consideration of the evidence adduced before it is Labour Court came to the conclusion that petitioners factory at Baska, District Panchmahal. er consideration of the evidence adduced before it the Labour Court conclusion that the petitioner had orally terminated the services of practicent on 1st September, 1998 and this amounted to unfair labour this view of the matter the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of dent with backwages with effect from the September, 1998. The revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court was dismissed by the Industrial Court by the impugned order.

7. Mr. Rele, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding by the Labour Court that the petitioner had orally terminated the f the respondent from 1st September, 1998 was palpably wrong and the petitioner w