VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No.4654 OF 2008 Dhondiram T. Patil Petitioner Vs. Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Respondents Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. Mr. M. S. Topkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh S. Pakale, for the Respondent. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : JULY 2, 2008. PC :- . The services of the petitioner were terminated after a disciplinary inquiry on the ground of misconduct and involvement in misappropriation. The petitioner filed Application (BIRA) No.6 of 1982 challenging the termination. On 13th May 1992 the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the inquiry was not fair and proper and this finding was confirmed by the Industrial Court on 8th February 2002. A Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 4th July, 2002. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed on 9th July 2005 and an order of remand was passed. On 21st November 2007, a learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the finding of the Labour Court, as confirmed by the Industrial Court. A Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the - 2 - Supreme Court on 11th April 2008. 2. The petitioner had moved an application for amendment on 25th March, 2008. The application was allowed by the Labour Court, but the order has been set aside in appeal by the Industrial Court. Now, it is an admitted position that in 1987 the petitioner had moved an application for amendment which was allowed. By the proposed amendment which relates to the subject matter of this proceeding, the petitioner has essentially sought to rely upon certain settlements which were effected by the employer with several employees in January 1985. These facts were known to the petitioner when the application for amendment was moved in 1987, but were not sought to be pleaded. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the order allowing the amendment had to be set aside. The pendency of the proceedings which related to the issue of the fairness of the inquiry could not have come in the way of the petitioner setting up the case in the two decades which have elapsed in the meantime. That apart, the evidence of the petitioner was already closed and the evidence of the respodnent employer had commenced. In this view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd= [ Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]