S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 9.12.1999 copy Annexure P/12, vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent was daily -wager and his services were terminated because he committed theft. Counsel for the respon dent No. 2 states that the respondent was regularised and served for about seven years. Admittedly no enquiry was carried out. 3 . Counsel for the petitioners states that the regularisation order was passed after the termination of service because the higher authority was not aware of the fact of subsequent development of theft. Be that as it may, it is admitted position that no enquiry was carried out. There is no dispute that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days. The question is whether the theft can be said to have been proved. The petitioner has relied on alleged confessional statement, translated version of which has been produced at Annexure P/2. The statement is made before Block Development and Panchayat Officer, who unfortunately died and could not been examined as witness before the Labour Court. Another witness has identified the signatures of the respondent on the said statement. However, it is not shown as to under which situation, the had made the statement. The respondent had come up with the case that the statement was obtained at the Police Station. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 has not stated so in the claim statement. Obviously, he could not, because the production of the statement before the Labour Court is an event subsequent to the filing of the Claim Statement. Except for this confessional statement, there is nothing on record to show that theft was committed by the respon -dent. Moreover, had there been any enquiry, the statement could have been used up by the petitioner in a batter way. Only by identification of the signature of the respondent on the statement by some witness, the confession cannot be said to be proved. No other argument has been advanced. In view of this position, we do not find any infirmity in the award of the Labour Court. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Petition dismissed.;