SURESH S O VISHWANATH PAWAR Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Present petitioner had challenged the termination of his services by respondents before Presiding Officer, Labour Court after a reference thereabout came to be made vide Reference IDA No. 31/1999. The Labour Court delivered an award earlier on 19. 9. 2002 and answered the reference partly in affirmative holding that petitioner workman was entitled to relief of reinstatement with continuity of service w. e. f. 5. 12. 1987, but without back-wages. The award was challenged before this court by Management in Writ Petition No. 3950/2002 and on 29. 11. 2003 this court by consent, quashed that award and remanded matter back to the Labour Court for deciding the reference afresh within three months. After allowing respondent to produce additional documents on record particularly the order of appointment. Similar opportunity was also given to the management. After remand the Labour Court has delivered impugned award on 15. 9. 2004 answering the reference in negative holding that the petitioner employee could not prove termination of his service on 5. 12. 1987 to be illegal.

(2.) ADVOCATE Saboo for petitioner contends that after remand the court below has found that petitioner workman could not establish his employment with respondent no. 2 and 3 and as that employment has not been established, the reference has been answered in negative. He points out that on earlier occasion a notice to produce document was given and muster rolls were demanded. As the muster rolls were not produced the Labour Court had drawn adverse inference. He further states that same course of action should have been adopted even after remand by Labour Court. He points out that the Headmaster earlier working retired and then he gave a xerox copy of appointment order dated 6. 12. 1985 to petitioner and petitioner produced it before Labour Court. However, when the said Headmaster was summoned as witness he refused to accept his signature on xerox copy and the petitioner produced an admitted document to show that it was his signature, but then Labour Court failed in not comparing the signature correctly. In these circumstances he contends that the petition needs to be allowed and petitioner needs to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

(3.) LEARNED A. G. P. points out that School Tribunal has found that there was no employer and employee relationship between the parties and the retired Headmaster when deposed before Labour Court, refused to even recognize the petitioner.