1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.309 OF 1997 Subhash Motichand Shah ..Petitioner. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.G. Dhanure with Mr. Mayur Shetty i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for the Respondents. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 31st March, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petition seeks to impugn an arbitral award under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in pursuance of an agreement dated 17th June, 1994 under Section 66 of the Act. The workman in question was imposed with the penalty of two days suspension on a charge of misconduct under Standing Order 20(a) to the effect that there was willful disobedience of a lawful or reasonable order of a superior. On 22nd February, 1994 the employee was assigned the job of changing the F.I. Pump and the fan belt during the night shift, but he refused to do the work on the ground that he should be allotted light work. The Arbitrator has 2 found as a matter of fact that the employee had admitted that a helper was given to him to assist him in discharging his duties. Despite this the workman had not worked from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. for a period of three hours. The finding of fact is that the work which is allotted to the employee was light in nature which could be done by a fitter with the help of a cleaner. 2. In the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, this Court would not be justified in reappreciating the findings of fact which have been arrived at by the Arbitrator or to substitute its own conclusion. There is a pure finding of fact in regard to the incident which took place. The punishment which has been imposed cannot be regarded as disproportionate or arbitrary. There is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is dismissed. The rule stands discharged.