1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4258 of 2011 E. James Koruth ...Petitioner Versus Laxmi International Hotel ...Respondents Ms. Sarojini Upadhayay for Petitioners. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 29th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This writ petition takes exception to the award passed by the Presiding Officer, 6th Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 2nd May, 2009 in Reference (IDA) No.634 of 1997. The Labour Court, after analysing the pleadings, evidence and other documents on record has found as the fact that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was in the employment of the respondent hotel. On that finding, the reference was answered in the negative against the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner vehemently 2 argued that there was voluminous evidence produced before the Labour Court which would establish the factum that petitioner was in employment of the respondent hotel. 2. We are not impressed by this submission. It is not the argument of the petitioner that the documents or evidence which the petitioner had relied before the Labour Court has not been adverted to or analysed by the Labour Court at all. Whereas, it is noticed that the Labour Court has found that the petitioner neither pleaded nor was able to prove the fact that he was employed by the respondent hotel. The Labour Court, in paragraph 13 has noted that in the statement of claim, the petitioner did not assert that he was working as Steward or Room Attendant in the respondent hotel. The Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that the said finding is manifestly wrong or error apparent on the face of record. In that sense, the Labour Court has noticed that the petitioner failed to allege the factum of being in employment of the respondent hotel. In any case, the Labour Court then proceeded to analyse every document relied by the petitioner and upon due scrutiny thereof, concluded that the said documents would not help the petitioner in establishing the 3 factum of being in employment of the respondent hotel. It is not possible for us to re-appreciate the evidence. It is will established position that even if this court is of the opinion that another view is possible on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, that itself cannot be the ground for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. Suffice it to observe that the opinion recorded by the Labour Court, after analysing the pleading and documents on record is a possible view. In that case, there is no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Hence petition is dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)