IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.796 of 2008 CEAT India Limited ..Petitioner vs. Shrirang Ramchandra Deshmukh ..Respondent Mrs.N.R.Patankar with Mr.V.P.Sawant for petitioner. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 22nd April, 2008 22nd April, 2008 22nd April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the order passed on 3rd October, 2007 by the 6th Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No.941 of 1992. 2. A reference was made as the respondent- workman had claimed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 18th March, 1992. The undisputed facts would show that the Award was made on 30th September, 2004 whereunder the Labour Court held that the workman had not committed any act of misconduct much less the one alleged by the petitioner company. The order of dismissal dated 18th March, 1992 was, therefore, held to be vitiated and was set aside. The petitioner was directed to reinstate this workman with full back wages and continuity of service. 3. The petitioner company challenged the Award in this Court by instituting the writ petition no.1282 of 2004 which was allowed on 18th July, 2006. 4. There is a chequered history as far as this order in the writ petition also. It appears that on 30th May, 2000 the Labour Court held that the enquiry against the workman was vitiated and findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and illegal. Thereafter Part II Award was rendered on 30th September, 2004. The company filed the above writ petition challenging Part II Award. The learned single Judge of this Court admitted the writ petition, granted interim stay only to the extent of payment of back wages but did not stay the direction of the Labour Court of reinstatement of the workman. 5. Aggrieved thereby an Appeal was preferred by the petitioner company being Appeal no.836 of 2005. That appeal was dismissed on 25th October, 2005. 6. The workman also challenged the interim order passed by the learned single Judge in the above writ petition to the extent it refused him back wages. 7. The workman’s appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. On 18th July, 2006 the Writ Petition came up before the learned single Judge who set aside only a portion of part II Award i.e.to the extent, it directed the payment of full back wages to the respondent workman. The matter was remanded to the Labour Court only for deciding as to what should be the quantum of the back wages. It is that adjudication which proceeded and ultimately by the impugned order the Labour Court has held that the workman is entitled to only 50% of the back wages. Thus, the order of reinstatement is confirmed. 8. Fresh round by this petition is to challenge the quantum of back wages to the extent of 50% as awarded in the impugned award. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. All that is contended before me is that the workman was not honest and truthful in his version before the Labour Court. He ought to have disclosed that for 13 long years in a city like Mumbai one could not survive without any employment or work or income. That apart, he had some immovable property which he disposed of and his Bank account would reveal that he had made certain investments. In such circumstances, the labour Court should not have granted him 50% of claim. 10. It is not possible to accept this contention for more than one reason. This is not a Court of further appeal. The matter of appreciation of evidence are not within its purview unless it is demonstrated to be perverse. Another view of the matter may be possible but that is no ground to interfere as well. Reappreciation and reappraisal of the material being impermissible and award of the Labour Court being consistent with the deposition of the parties, this is not a fit case for interference. 11. More so, when the only contention of the petitioner before the Courts below was that for 13 long years the workman could not have survived in a city like Mumbai. In my view, in the peculiar facts of this case, when this is the only contention the Labour Court was right in rejecting the same. Merely urging this is not enough but material has to be produced in that behalf. In the instant case, in para 14 of the impugned award the learned Judge has referred to the fact that the case of the company is that the workman was gainfully employed. It has admittedly reinstated the workman in 2005. The question was only of back wages. Apart from the suggestion to the workman that he was getting income from agricultural land which suggestion has been denied by him, the company has not produced any material. In such circumstances, the annexures to the writ petition now placed before me cannot be relied upon to take a different view. The copy of the deposition has been annexed to the writ petition. It is not as if the workman has suppressed the fact of his having agricultural land or having opened the Bank account. He has also explained as to how the amounts have been deposited therein. In such circumstances and when some income comes from the public provident fund or agricultural land there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order only on that ground. The learned Judge has in these circumstances granted back wages to the extent of 50%. This finding is based on the fact of other income. Thus, this Writ petition is devoid of any merit and is summarily rejected. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)