1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The issue to be decided in this petition is as to whether a cause of action would survive for the Labour Court to exercise jurisdiction U/Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, after the respondent employer declares by an affidavit/written say before the Labour Court that there is no oral termination or termination of any kind or that the complainant is not terminated.

3. The respondent is said to have been working with the petitioner/Management at its Automobile Workshop from 1991. On 21/08/2003, he preferred Complaint (ULP) No.135/2003 under Section 28(1) of The MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. An application for interim relief u/s 30(2) was also filed. Contention was that some accountant/Officer of the petitioner orally refused employment to the respondent w.e.f. 20/08/2003 and therefore, it would amount to termination U/Item 1 of Schedule IV.

4. The petitioner/Management filed a written say dated 25/08/2003 which is supported by an affidavit, specifically contending in paragraph No.2 that there is no oral termination or otherwise termination on 19/08/2003 or 20/08/2003. It is stated in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 that the respondent/workman has disobeyed the instructions at his work place on 19/08/2003. He refused to perform his work. In paragraph No.8, it was contended that the respondent had stopped reporting for duties from 20/08/2003 and has rushed to the Court only to evade disciplinary action.

5. The Labour Court did not grant any ad-interim protection to the respondent. However, by order dated 02/09/2003, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to deposit 3 months wages in lieu of reinstatement and the respondent was given the liberty to withdraw the said amount.

6. It is stated that on 16/09/2003, the petitioner issued the first charge sheet with regard to willful disobedience of the instructions of the Superior. On 18/09/2003, a second charge sheet was issued alleging that the respondent herein was unauthorizedly absent from 20/08/2003. In my view, considering the date of the charge sheet, the allegation of absenteeism would be restricted to 29 days from 20/08/2003 till 18/09/2003. It is stated that after the completion of the domestic enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service by way of punishment on 18/12/2007.

7. In the light of the above facts, it emerges that after the dismissal of the respondent, the petitioner/Management filed its written statement on the same day before the Labour Court contending that the respondent has now been dismissed from service. Xerox copies of the enquiry proceedings and the order of dismissal was produced.

8. By judgment dated 22/12/2012, the Labour Court dismissed the complaint by holding that, there is no oral termination as on 20/08/2003, that the employer has denied oral termination as on the first available opportunity through an affidavit dated 25/08/2003, that the workman did not summon or lead evidence of the said accountant whom he claimed had terminated his services and that the workman had not challenged his dismissal dated 18/12/2007.

9. It is noteworthy that the Revision (ULP) No.38/2011 filed by the respondent/workman u/s 44 of the Act before the Industrial Court was allowed by judgment dated 27/06/2012. Since it was an exparte judgment, the petitioner had filed Misc.Civil Application No.1/2012 seeking restoration of the revision petition. By order dated 18/10/2013, the Industrial Court rejected the Misc. Application and hence the petitioner had approached this Court in WP No.9843/2013. By judgment dated 01/10/2014, the writ petition was disposed of and the respondent was granted the liberty to call in question his dismissal dated 18/12/2007. The revision petition was remitted to the Industrial Court for a rehearing.

10. It was after the abovesaid order of remand that the revision petition was reheard by the Industrial Court and upon considering the rival contentio