IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No. 65 of 2006 in L.P.A. (St.) No. 3655 of 2006 M/S. SWAN MILLS LTD. ... Applicant. V/S SARJERAO RAMCHANDRA AND ORS. .. respondents Mr. V. P. Vaidya for applicant Ms. Shobhana Gopal for respondents. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI JJ. DATE:25/04/2006 P.C.: Heard learned advocate for the applicant and the respondents. Perused the application. Considering the facts disclosed in the application the same reveals sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay in filing the LPA is condoned. The application is disposed of. (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI J.) (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE L.P.A. (St.) No. 3655 of 2006 M/S. SWAN MILLS LTD. ... appellant . V/S SARJERAO RAMCHANDRA AND ORS. .. respondents Mr. V. P. Vaidya for appellant Ms. Shobhana Gopal for respondents. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI JJ. DATE:25/04/2006 P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocates for the appellant and the respondents. The appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.10.2005n passed in writ petition no. 1835 of 2005. By the impugned order the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Labour Court has been dismissed. 2. The Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 28th November 1995 in application (BIR) No. 1229 of 1978 under Sections 78 and 79 of the B.I.F.R. Act, allowed the said application and set aside the order of dismissal and further awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh for loss of service, while rejecting the claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. -2- 3. The Industrial Court by its judgment and order in Revision application (ULP) No. 16 of 1999 passed on 28.7.2004 confirmed the said order of the Labour Court while dismissing the said revision application. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order refused to interfere in the findings of the courts below. 4. Undisputedly, the two sarees, which were alleged to be stolen from the Folding department of the appellant company, were found with the cleaner of the truck carrying the goods from the factory. It was the allegation that the same sarees were handed over to the cleaner by the respondent no.1. However, the cleaner of the truck was never examined before the Labour Court. There was no satisfactory explanation for non- examination of the cleaner during the course of enquiry. Both the courts below as well as the learned Single Judge have arrived at concurrent findings on the absence of proof of theft by the workman and therefore set aside the order of dismissal of the workman and further directed compensation in lieu of loss of service from the date of the dismissal till reinstatement. The finding on the point of absence of proof regarding the theft by the workman, apart from being concurrent is clearly borne out from the record and we do not find any material illegality or perversity in the said finding. 5. As regards the compensation, the Labour Court has justified the quantum awarded by referring to the period during which the workman was kept out of service and on that count -3- having lost the wages. 6. For the reasons stated above, there is absolutely no case for interference in the impugned order in L.P.A. There is no illegality committed nor is there any impropriety on the part of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Hence the appeal is summarily rejected. (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI J.) (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR J)