JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This petition is at the instance of the employer, Messrs Ajanta Talkies, 88, K.P. Kakkar Road, Allahabad, a proprietorship firm running a cinema at the above address,. It impugned an award dated 18 June, 1979 of the Labour Court Allahabad, given in Adjudication Case No. 49 of 1978. The award arose out of a labour dispute in reference to two workmen, namely, Liak Ali and Ajay Singh. The decision in reference to the workman Ajai Singh was in favour of the employer. Thus this petition is in reference to Liak Ali, hereinafter referred to as the respondent workman. 2. The respondent workman sought reference before the Labour Court on the plea that the termination of his services as a cinema operator, on 7 August, 1947 was not bona fide and he sought reinstatement. Upon conciliation proceeding failing the matter of dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, aforesaid under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference in so far as the workman Liak Ali is concerned was whether his services had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably and if so, to what reliefs and benefits he was entitled to. 3. At the outset it needs to be placed on record that the pleadings of both the parties, whether employer or the workman concerned, were not specific and lacking in detail. None of the parties replied to the written statements exchanged between them before the Labour Court. 4. The employer contended that the workman had been given a duration bound assignment on a purely temporary capacity for a period of three months from 15th May, 1977 and that the workman abandoned his service by giving a letter of resignation prior to the expiry of the period of employment. It is said that the letter of resignation is dated 7th August, 1977. The workman made an issue on the letter of resignation by making an allegation against the employer, to the effect, that it was forged and he had not tendered any resignation. 5. Thus, the question where the resignation tendered by the workman was forged or not became the only issue before the Labour Court for adjudication. 6. The labour Court subjected the letter of resignation, alleged to have been tendered by the workman by sending it to a handwriting expert. 5. Thus, the question where the resignation tendered by the workman was forged or not became the only issue before the Labour Court for adjudication. 6. The labour Court subjected the letter of resignation, alleged to have been tendered by the workman by sending it to a handwriting expert. The report was, to the effect, that the letter did not appear to be written by the workman concerned, and that the handwriting of the letter when compared with other scripts of the workman, did not give an impression as if they have been written by the workman concerned. Against the report of the handwriting expert the petitioner filed objections before the Labour Court. The objections were that the said expert was not a person who was otherwise qualified or had credibility. In fortifying their objections upon the credibility of the handwriting expert the petitioner relied on an observation made by the Civil Judge, Allahabad, in Suit No. 29 of 1954 Smt. Zainab Bibi v. Fazal Ahmad. The Civil Judge had observed that the same handwriting expert was not qualified and was not a matriculate. The fact that the report of the handwriting expert was not accepted in the suit, aforesaid, is not a relevant circumstance to be taken note by this Court, but the fact that the Civil Judge had an occasion to reflect upon the qualification and the credibility of the handwriting expert is an aspect which this Court ought not to ignore. The observation of the Civil Judge to the effect that the handwriting expert was not qualified affects the worth of an evidence, where the rights of the parties are under adjudication. The objection, of the employer on the credibility of the handwriting expert was a matter which should have been considered by the Labour Court. 7. Before the Labour Court embarked upon the exercise to find out whether the letter of resignation alleged to be submitted by the workman concerned was genuine or not it should have gone into the question whether the workman concerned had a right to seek a relief of reinstatement. The workman was contending in his written statement that he had worked with the employer previously and that the period of three months, being declared to the Labour Court effective 15th May, 1977 was not the first employment which the workman concerned had with the petitioner. The workman was contending in his written statement that he had worked with the employer previously and that the period of three months, being declared to the Labour Court effective 15th May, 1977 was not the first employment which the workman concerned had with the petitioner. He submitted that he had worked with the same employer on the same post previously. 8. The question before the Labour Court was to consider and return a finding whether the workman concerned had discharged continuous service within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If the Labour Court had indulged in this exercise and come to the conclusion that the workman concerned had discharged continuous service then the question of examining the plea whether the resignation letter was fabricated or not may have been a secondary matter. 9. It is for this reason that this Court thought it proper and in the interest of justice to permit the parties to produce their rejoinder statement, if submitted before the Labour Court. Thus, this Court passed an order on 15th July, 1988, reproduced below : "Heard counsel for the parties at length today. The pleading exchanged between the parties before the Labour Court, Allahabad, have not been placed in the writ petition. It is essential that these be on record as only then the record is before the Court. This was an obligation of the petitioner. Let a certified copy of the pleadings not appended to the petition be produced before the Court. This does not absolve the responsibility of the workman concerned, not to have appended the documents to the counter affidavit. In addition to the pleadings, aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also place before this Court the application made by the workman concerned before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the order of the Prescribed Authority, the appeal of the workman concerned, and the decision of the appellate authority. A reference to this has been made in par a 27 of the writ petition. The petition will remain on the list as part heard." 10. In the pleadings exchanged in the writ petition there was a mention that the workman has filed a case under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. A reference to this has been made in par a 27 of the writ petition. The petition will remain on the list as part heard." 10. In the pleadings exchanged in the writ petition there was a mention that the workman has filed a case under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In order that the parties may have recourse to their pleadings from any other collateral record, the Court permitted that the application as filed by the workman under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 be produced before this Court. As a consequence of the indulgence granted by this Court the petitioner has filed a certified copy of the written statement of the workman dated 13 April, 1978, which had not been appended to his counter affidavit in answer to the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed a certified copy of the order of the Payment of Wages Authority, dated 2nd April, 1979 in Case No. PW 29 of 1977, Laik Ali v. Radhey Shyam Agarwal and Manager, Ajania Talkies. Thus, the parties have had adequate opportunity to place as much record before this Court which they had not so far placed on record of the writ petition. 11. The Court has heard counsel for the parties at length. 12. It has already been mentioned that the written statement had not even been filed by the workman concerned alongwith the counter affidavit. On this aspect the Court has seen the certified copy of this written statement produced by the petitioner. The Court has also seen the decision of the Payment of Wages Authority dated 2 April, 1979, aforesaid, initiated on the application of the respondent workman when he was complaining that the wages are with held and yet to be received by him. From the perusal of the judgment of the Payment of Wages Authority, it is apparent that the workman worked for the following periods: 1-9-1976 to 31-10-1976, 1-2-1977 to 29-3-1977 and 15-5-1977 to 7-8-1977. The employment during these periods is not disputed by either of the parties. The workman attempted to mention before the Payment of Wages Authority that he had worked prior to September, 1976. But this aspect is surrounded in dispute. The employment during these periods is not disputed by either of the parties. The workman attempted to mention before the Payment of Wages Authority that he had worked prior to September, 1976. But this aspect is surrounded in dispute. The employer, the petitioner before this Court had led evidence that during May, June and July of that year the workman was employed with another cinema in Allahabad. However, this Court cannot comment on his aspect except that it is a disputed issue on facts. 13. Thus, even after taking judicial notice of the periods referred to above during which the workman worked with the petitioner, it is clear that continuous service within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been discharged by the workman. This was an aspect which needed to be enquired into by the Labour Court. Merely retuning a finding to the effect that the letter of resignation may have been forged could not give a relief of reinstatement to the workmen concerned because, firstly, he had to make out a right to the post under the law and, secondly only then claim the relief by pleading and proving unfair labour practice and continuous service. 14. Thus, the workman had not been able to prove his case that he was entitled to reinstatement either for the reason that the petitioner may have been guilty of unfair labour practice or was entitled to reinstatement alter discharging continuous service. The award of the Labour Court, aforesaid, cannot be sustained as the real issue had not been examined for want of inadequate pleadings and evidence by the workman concerned. Thus, the award dated 18th June, 1979 in Adjudication Case No. 49 of 1978 is so far as it relates to the workman, Liak Ali the respondent No. 3, stands quashed. 15. The stay order dated 17th April, 1980 is discharged. The amount drawn upon furnishing security was intended to abide the result of this writ petition. Let the security be enforced immediately, unless the amount is refunded by the workman concerned. The amount which was meant to be withdrawn without furnishing security was not intended to be refunded, and shall remain with the workman for the reason that the petitioner had been left free to take or not to take work, from the workman. without order on costs. 16. The writ petition is allowed without order on costs.