1 APP113.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.113 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1096 OF 2009 KJ Mr.Raja Palan )..Appellant Vs. M/s.Hindalco Industries )..Respondents ---- Mr.Nitin Kulkarni @ Sangita Deo for the appellant. Mr.J.P.Cama Sr.Counsel @ Atman Mehta & Hemant Telkar i/by Haresh Mehta & Co.for the respondents. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 25/4/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ petition on the basis that finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Court was palpably untenable. Learned single Judge has adverted to the evidence on record disclosing that no provident fund deduction for the wages paid to the respondent no.1 or any contribution to 2 APP113.10.sxw Hindalco Industries as is done in respect of other permanent employees of Hindalco Industries. No salary has been paid by the Hindalco Industries directly to the appellant at any point of time. Significantly, appellant has admitted in his evidence that salary was paid to him directly by Mr.Maudgal and his wife. The case of the appellant is that he was in service of the respondent-company since 1998. However, in the evidence it has come on record that Mr. Shashikant Maudgal entered the service of respondent- company in the year 2001. The said officer in his evidence stated that the appellant was appointed by his family prior to his joining first party company in the year 2001 i.e 2 & ½ years earlier. The officer has further deposed that amongst other facilities from the company, being Executive officer, he was getting driver’s allowance for his personal use. It is also noticed from the evidence as has been found by the learned single Judge that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to substantiate his case that he, in fact, was serving in the respondent-company from 1998 as has been alleged in the complaint filed by him. Considering the evidence, in our opinion, the learned single Judge 3 APP113.10.sxw has justly reversed the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court which was not consistent with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, no reason to interfere in this appeal. Hence, dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)