JUDGMENT : Milind N. Jadhav, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. None appears for the respondent though duly served. 2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner Rashtriya Mul Niwasi Bahujan Karmachari Sangh has challenged the impugned award dated 05.04.2018 passed by Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Reference (IDA) No. 1/2015 between the Respondent's management (Original Party no. 1) and Petitioner-Union (Original Party no. 2). The said award answers the Reference in the negative and, inter alia, holds that the Petitioner-Union has failed to prove that workers mentioned in the settlement of claim have been illegally terminated and therefore, are not entitled for relief and reinstatement. The relevant facts essential for deciding the present Writ Petition are as follows :- 3. The Respondent is a private Hotel which employs workmen/employees. The Petitioner is a labour union of workmen working in the Respondent's Hotel. In all, 28 members of the Petitioner's labour union were working in the Respondent's Hotel as employees in various capacities (as assistants in kitchen and house keeping department). The services of all these 28 members came to be orally terminated by the Respondent's management as they had chosen to join the Petitioner-Union as its members. The oral termination was made on 28.05.2015. On 01.06.2015, the Regional President of the Petitioner-Union addressed a communication to the Respondent's management to reinstate the terminated employees. However, since no action was taken by the Respondent's management, the Petitioner-Union was constrained to file the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur for seeking redressal of their grievance. The said dispute was signed by 27 employees. The Respondent's management in the meanwhile succeeded in getting back 12 employees out of the aforesaid 27 employees back on work and re-employed them by making them sign a back dated apology letter to the management. Thus, out of 27 employees,15 employees were still affected and out of work. This fact was confirmed by the Respondent's management by communication dated 05.06.2015 addressed to the President of the Petitioner-Union about resignation of some of its members of the Petitioner-Union. Before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur, it was the case of the management that the Petitioner Union was formed alongwith 27 employees and however, out of the said 27 more than 15 employees had been reinstated who had come back to the work on their own, by the Respondent's management. Before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur, it was the case of the management that the Petitioner Union was formed alongwith 27 employees and however, out of the said 27 more than 15 employees had been reinstated who had come back to the work on their own, by the Respondent's management. It was further stated that Respondent's management had taken as many employees as required by them. The Respondent's management except for filing a communication dated 29.06.2015 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur did not attend reconciliation proceedings and therefore the said proceedings were closed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur and by communication dated 31.10.2015 dispute of 17 employees of the Petitioner-Union was referred to Industrial Court, Chandrapur for adjudication. The Industrial Court, Chandrapur while adjudicating the aforesaid issue, inter alia, answered the Reference in the negative and held that the Petitioner-Union failed to prove that the workers mentioned in the statement of claim were illegally terminated and therefore, they were not entitled for reinstatement and against this order, the parties are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Union submitted that the order passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur was patently illegal, perverse and against settled principles of law in as much as, there was ample evidence on record that no contest was made by the Respondent's management and considering the evidence there was no reason for the Industrial Court, Chandrapur to hold that the Petitioner-Union had failed to prove that workers were illegally terminated. He submitted that it was never denied by the Respondent's management at any point of time that the affected workers were employees of the Respondent's management. In fact, the affected workers alongwith several workers who have been reinstated were admittedly part of Respondent's management. He submitted that it was a basic fundamental right of the employees working in the Respondent's management to form a union and the Respondent's management therefore was uncomfortable with it and victimized the workman who became members of the Petitioner-Union and it was this victimization which was spelt out in the oral termination of the employees. He submitted that the Respondent's management, save and except, filing communication dated 29.06.2015 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur never appeared before it thereafter or before the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in the Reference proceedings to oppose the case of the Petitioner-Union. He submitted that the Respondent's management, save and except, filing communication dated 29.06.2015 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur never appeared before it thereafter or before the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in the Reference proceedings to oppose the case of the Petitioner-Union. He submitted that the Petitioner-Union filed its evidence on affidavit on 27.07.2017 and the said evidence was not controverted and no cross-examination could take place because the Respondent's management absented itself from the said proceedings. He submitted that these facts are required to be considered by this Court specially in view of the order passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur. He finally submitted that the impugned award dated 05.04.2018 was therefore, perverse and illegal in as much as it was against the settled principles of law and it did not taken into account the truth relating to the facts and circumstances prevailing and deserved to be set aside. 5. After considering the aforesaid submissions and perusal of the impugned order and various annexures to the Petition, we find that the Presiding Officer of Industrial Court, Chandrapur has not taken into account the crucial fact that despite evidence been led by the Petitioner-Union and the said evidence not being controverted, there was no reason for not accepting the said evidence and to consider answering the Reference otherwise, specially in view of the fact that the Respondent's management had chosen to remain away from the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur as well as before the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in the Reference proceedings. 6. Another aspect of the matter, which requires consideration is that all the 27 employees, including 12 employees who were taken back on work by the Respondent's management were working together since 2010-11 in their respective jobs. On perusal of the pleadings, it appears that, Respondent's management was quit upset with the fact that the employees had decided to come under the umbrella of the Petitioner-Union and as such they decided to unionise themselves for the purpose of redressal of their grievances. Therefore, the oral termination clearly appeared to be victimization of employees by the Respondent's management and there are certain instances which are pointed out to reach this conclusion. The pleadings also suggest that efforts for reconciliation and reinstatement of the employees were made but, it appears that the Respondent's management was reluctant to take back the 17 employees. Therefore, the oral termination clearly appeared to be victimization of employees by the Respondent's management and there are certain instances which are pointed out to reach this conclusion. The pleadings also suggest that efforts for reconciliation and reinstatement of the employees were made but, it appears that the Respondent's management was reluctant to take back the 17 employees. However, in the same breath the Respondent's management had taken back to work/reinstated 12 employees out of the original 27 employees. One another aspect which requires to be dealt with is that, remaining out of employment has dealt a severe blow to these 17 employees and this aspect has not been considered at all. The impugned award has determined points for consideration and principal point of consideration is whether the Petitioner-Union has proved that the Respondent's management has illegally terminated the 17 workers and this point has been answered in the negative. From the reasons given in the impugned award, it appears that the Respondent's management appeared only once before the reconciliation officer i.e. Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur and the only statement made on behalf of the Respondent's management was that the remaining workers had come back to work with the Respondent's management and had joined work and that the affected workers were instigating the said workers who had joined the work. However, in respect of this charge, there is no material available on record which has been discussed in the impugned award, nor the Respondent's management had led any evidence to this effect. There is also no finding to the effect that termination of these 27 workers was oral and in what circumstances the termination was made. This is because, the said termination has effected a severe blow to the affected workers. Another aspect which has been looked into in the impugned order is with respect to the number of days these affected workers had worked with the Respondent's management. It has been concluded that there is no evidence of the number of days these affected workers had worked with the Respondent's management. However, Annexure-'F' to the Petition which is the examination-in-chief filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Union before the Industrial Court, Chandrapur gives all details of the affected workers with respect to their Serial number, date of appointment, date of termination and the salary drawn by each of the said workers on the said date. However, Annexure-'F' to the Petition which is the examination-in-chief filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Union before the Industrial Court, Chandrapur gives all details of the affected workers with respect to their Serial number, date of appointment, date of termination and the salary drawn by each of the said workers on the said date. In view of this, it is highly unlikely for the Industrial Court, Chandrapur to come to the conclusion that there is no document on record to show and highlight the number of days the affected workers had worked with the Respondent's management. 7. For the above reasons, the impugned award dated 05.04.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court, Chandrapur for a fresh hearing and award to be given in the Reference. 8. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Chandrapur shall complete the hearing of Reference within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after issuing due notice to the Petitioner-Union, the affected 17 workmen as well as the Respondent management. All submissions and contentions of the parties are kept open for the purpose of deciding the Reference afresh. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no orders as to cost.