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