PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT. LTD. Vs. JAGANNATH VITHAL JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken on board for final hearing. Heard the learned counsel. The petitioner-company challenges the order dtd. 25th June, 2003, by which the Labour Court, Pune partly allowed the Reference and directed reinstatement of the respondent as a Driver with continuity of service. The Labour Court, however, rejected the claim of the respondent for backwages.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is an Engineering Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of manufacturing of Rickshaws. One Mr. Umesh Vajir was working as Director Manufacturing of the Petitioner-Company. The respondent was working with him as a "Driver" on his vehicle. Mr. Vazir left the employment of the Company w.e.f. 25th July, 2000. With the exit of Mr. Vazir, the respondent also ceased to work on the vehicles of the company from 25th July, 2000. Four years thereafter, i.e. in the year 2004, the respondent raised an industrial dispute contending that his services has been illegally terminated by the company and seeking reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner disputed his claim contending that the respondent was never recruited by the petitioner and hence there was no question of his reinstatement. On failure of the settlement, the dispute was referred to the 3rd Labour Court, Pune for adjudication. On 16th February, 2004, the respondent filed statement of claim. The petitioner filed it's written statement dtd. 4th March, 2005. The evidence recorded before the Labour Court consisted of the deposition of the respondent, the documents produced by him and the deposition of the company's, witness i.e. Manager (Administration).

(3.) In it's written statement, the petitioner denied that it had recruited the respondent. Since the respondent was not recruited, there was no question of his termination. The petitioner claimed that it had neither issued any appointment letter nor a muster card to him. The facts of non issuance of an appointment letter and muster card are not denied by the respondent.