S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the Labour Court had erred in holding that respondent No. 1 had completed 240 days after doing work upto November 21, 1992. We do not find any reason to differ with the finding of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has observed that the summoned record was not brought by the petitioner -management and opportunity of cross -examining the witness on the summoned record was, therefore, not available to respondent No. 1. It has drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the finding of the Labour court. Even if the record was not summoned, an adverse inference could have been drawn by the Labour Court in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latif and others, A.I.R. I96S S.C. 1413.
(2.) HERE in this case, the record was summoned but it was not brought before the Labour court which further weakens the case of the petitioner. We do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court that respondent No. 1 had completed 240 days of his service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that demand notice was given after a long period i.e. on January 1,1994. However, we find that the Labour Court has restricted the back wages to 50%. We, therefore, do not find it proper to further restrict the back wages. As a result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(3.) PETITION dismissed.;