IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2008 Hemali Miastry @ Sakhare ..Petitioner vs. 1. E-Serve International Ltd. and others ...Respondents Mr.R.S.Upadhyay for petitioner. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 2nd June 2008 2nd June 2008 2nd June 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. A reference made by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been unable to substantiate her case of wrongful and illegal termination of her services. On the basis of the material produced on record the Court below has observed that the petitioner has abandoned her services and it is not that the services have been wrongfully terminated. The conduct of the petitioner has been highlighted in as much as when she has appointment with the first respondent company and she confirmed that appointment in writing on 3rd December 2001 the period of contract being of one year, she goes on leave and thereafter it is her case that she tried to resume her duties by reporting at work but was not allowed to do so. 2. On the other hand her admissions are that during the course of period of one year, she tried her luck with ICICI Bank and other companies and thereafter purported to return and report for work. Even that conduct has been considered in as much the petitioner waited till 9th September, 2002. Prior thereto it is her case that she allegedly reported for work. The assertion in that behalf is not substantiated at all. She has given the names of two officers, but none of whom are examined by her. There is nothing on record to show that on the day she allegedly reported for work, she was told or directed to report to another office of the respondent company. In such circumstances, the factual finding that the petitioner has abandoned the services and they have not been terminated does not call for any interference as it is consistent with the oral and documentary evidence. The oral and documentary evidence having been appreciated by the Court below this Court cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction as if it is an Appellate Court. The finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse so as to call for interference in the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)