1 wp5457.2022..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5457 OF 2022 Director, Sonekar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, (Sonekar College of Education, D.Ed.) Great Nag Road, Siraspeth, Nagpur-9 through its Director Shri Keshav s/o Parasram Sonekar, Aged about 50 yrs, r/o. Reshimbagh, Nagpur ...PETITIONER ...V E R S U S... Vijay Shyamao Chavhan, aged about 50 yrs, Occ. Clerk, R/o Anand Lute’s House, Labhan Tanda, Juni Shukrawari, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.J. Pathak, Advocate for respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 03.02.2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2026 JUDGMENT: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for both the parties. 2. The petition challenges the award dated 17.9.2021, passed by Labour Court, Nagpur, in Reference I.D.A. Case 2026:BHC-NAG:3743 2 wp5457.2022..odt No. 20/2017 whereby, the reference came to be allowed, the termination of the respondent was set aside and a direction was given to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity in service and full back wages. 3. The respondent claims that he was working with the petitioner on the post of Peon from 1.7.1996, on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. In the year 2016, services of the respondent came to be terminated illegally, when he demanded arrears of three months salary due towards the petitioner. 4. The petitioner appeared before the Labour Court and denied the claim inter alia, contending that the respondent worked with it just for three months on temporary basis from December 2015 to February 2016. During the said period, the respondent was continuously absent and suddenly, left his office without giving any intimation to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sought rejection of the complaint. The Labour Court, after conducting an enquiry, allowed the reference by impugned order dated 17.09.2021 which is under challenge in this petition. 3 wp5457.2022..odt 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. I have also gone though the impugned order. 6. It appears that the respondent produced the muster roll of the petitioner’s school of the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, which shows his attendance from 2001. Apart from contending that the muster roll produced on record by the respondent is false and fabricated, no document has been filed before the Labour Court by the petitioner in support of its defence. The learned Labour Court relied on the version of the respondent that he continuously worked with the petitioner for 240 days in each calendar year, till he came to be terminated in the year 2016. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are reproduced as under: “8) On the other hand, party no.2 took a consistent stand right from the conciliation proceeding till the proceeding before this Court that he was appointed as a Peon and was continuously working with party no.1 for years together. Muster roll (Exh.11) of various months ranging from year 2001 till 2003, does suggest that he was indeed working with party no.1, atleast from the year 2001. 9) Party no.2 was certainly not the custodian of those muster rolls (Exh.11). However, he kept it safely, perhaps anticipating that it may be useful somewhere in the near future. He explained this thing saying that those muster roll were given to him for destruction of old record. However, he did not destroy it and instead, kept it 4 wp5457.2022..odt with him. There is no sufficient material on record to claim that he was false or fabricated one Had party no. 1 produced alternate muster roll of the same period, which they could have certainly do it, then the genuineness of the muster roll (Exh.11) could have been tested otherwise. However, in absence of any such proof, these documents can not be said to have been fabricated one. Therefore, taking into account oral evidence of both the parties, this Court does not find enough material to term these document (Exh.11) as fabricated documents. As such, reliance can be placed on the entries of muster roll (Exh.11). Placing reliance on such documents, this Court find that party no.2 was working with party no.1 as a Peon atleast from the year 2001, if not from the year 1996. As such, it appears that he has continuously worked with party no.1 for 240 days in each calender year till he came to be terminated in the year 2016. 10) Insofar as alleged termination is concerned, evidence adduced by party no.2 appears to be more trustworthy. He claims that he was orally terminated because he was requesting for arrears of his salary. He then honestly claimed that arrears of salary was eventually paid to him, when the services came to be orally terminated. Party no.1 on the other hand does not want to disclose any of the fact recorded in various forms of documents. Therefore, this is a fit case where an adverse inference can be drawn, with regard to non filing of relevant muster register by party no.1. It can be inferred that muster rolls of relevant period were not favorable to the claim raised by party no.1 and it would have been more favorable to party no.2. 11) Be that as it may, evidence on record does, suggest that party no.2 was working with party no.1 as a Peon and he came to be orally terminated in March-2016. Since he had completed 240 days continuous service of the preceding year, either notice or salary in lieu of notice alongwith 5 wp5457.2022..odt retrenchment compensation were required to be paid as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. No such compliance to have been made by party no.1. Hence, termination effected by party no. 1 is found to be illegal. Party no.2 is still unemployed. Therefore, he is entitled for the relief of reinstatement alongwith continuity of service and full backwages. As such, I answer issue no. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and in answer to issue no.4.” Since, the muster roll of three years has been produced by the respondent and accordingly, the learned Labour Court has relied on the version of the respondent that he has worked for a continuous period of 240 days. On the other hand, the petitioner, who is the custodian of the records, did not produce anything including muster the rolls to prove otherwise. Needless to mention that no notice of retrenchment or compensation for retrenchment was granted to the respondent. Therefore, the observations recorded by the learned Labour Court do not require any interference. 7. No perversity is found in the order of the Labour Court and therefore, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) 6 wp5457.2022..odt RS Belkhede