The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving continuous service and the requirements for termination under the relevant labor laws.

A.H.Joshi, J.

1. This is an appeal by the employees, who are the original complainants. They had filed the complaint before the Labour Court, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred to as "MRTU and PULP Act").

2. The facts, which the appellants had narrated in the complaint are summarized as follows: (a) The complainant no. 1 was appointed on 02.07.1989, whereas complainant no. 2 was appointed on 01.01.1989. (b) Their services were terminated by the employer, by oral order on 17.09.2001. (c) Their contention and claim under section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act was:(i) Termination was effected without following mandatory requirement of Section 25(F) and (G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Section 4 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. (ii) Termination was on account of reasons which were not truthful and without notice, notice pay and payment of retrenchment compensation. (iii) Seniority of workmen was not prepared and juniors were retained in the employment.

3. The complaint was opposed by the respondents by filing written statement, contending that:(a) The fact that the complainants were employed and were terminated was admitted. (b) A specific plea was raised that complainants had not completed 240 days of employment during any of the years preceding the termination.

4. The complaint proceeded on the basis of affidavit of the complainant and some documents. Oral or documentary evidence whatsoever was not tendered by the employer.

5. The learned Judge, Labour Court, has discussed the aspect of continuous services in paragraph No. 9 of the Judgment. Learned Judge found that the evidence brought by the complainant in support of the complaint was not shattered in the crossexamination. Learned Judge of has observed in para No. 10 as follows:" 10. The complainants have filed several documents vide Exhibit U18. Those documents were the xerox copy which were issued by the respondents to them. The document dated 15.04.2002 vide Outward No. 88 shows that the Executive Engineer of the Respondents had issued one confidential letter to the Law o& Labour Welfare Officer, Mumbai in which he contended that during the calender year 1999 to 2000, the complainant had worked for 240 days in a calender year and therefore they are entitled to get protection under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act 1971. The copy of letter dated 29.02.2008 issued on behalf of the respondents to the complainant Rama Dahiwal shows that the respondents informed to the complainant Rama Dahiwal that the documents sought by him were belongs to the period from 1987 to 1998 and those documents were of 10 to 20 years old and therefore it is not possible for them to furnish the said information. This letter shows that the respondents avoided to furnish the document about the muster roll to the complainants Rama Dahiwal on the reasons that those documents were not available but the record shows that first time in the year 1995 by lodging the writ petition no. 217 of 1995 the complainants had raised their grievance. Therefore it was the bounden duty of the respondents to preserve the documents pertaining to the complainant nos. 1 and 2. In such situation adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents that if those documents would have produced before the Court, then those documents might have gone against the respondents."

6. In the result, the learned Judge of the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of both the complainants with 25% back wages.

7. The employer approached Industrial Court, challenging the judgment of Labour Court, Under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act by filing an application. The challenge can be seen from grounds No. (E) and (F), which reads as follows:"(E) That, the respondents did not prove their case they have completed 240 days in calender year but held that petitioners are engaged with unfair trade practice, hence judgm