1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2011 OF 2008 Shekhar G. Keer. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Rollfab Industries & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.C.R.Naidu i/b.M/s.C.R.Naidu & Co. for Petitioner. Mr.V.P.Vaidya for Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2008. : OCTOBER 14, 2008. : OCTOBER 14, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The argument of the Petitioner before this Court that the lower Court has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the complainant has admitted certain facts, is misplaced. On careful reading of the Judgment under appeal, it is obvious that the lower Court has not only adverted to the evidence of the Plaintiff, but also to the evidence of Mr.Tanaji Chavan. On analysing the evidence in particular in paragraph-13 and 14 of the Judgment, the Court below has found as of fact that there has been reduction of work since 2001. Till 2001, the establishment had employed 20 workmen and was operating in three shifts; whereas on account of 2 reduction of work lathe machine is operated only in one shift. This finding of fact is on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the evidence of Complainant to contend that nowhere the Complainant has admitted about reduction of work. In the cross-examination suggestion has been put to the Complainant that the company used to produce 15 to 20 rolls instead of agreed production of 150 rolls per day. Indeed that suggestion has been denied by the Plaintiff. However, at the same time, there is evidence to indicate that originally the establishment had employed over 20 workmen till 2001. Whereas now production operation is conducted with the assistance of only four workmen on lathe machine. Now the work is carried out only by Tanaji Chavan instead of 6 to 7 turner engaged in earlier point of time. That presupposes that there has been substantial reduction of work and the present work is good enough to occupy only one turner during one shift. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Parry & M/s.Parry & M/s.Parry & Co. Co. Co. Ltd. V/s.P.C.Pal, Judge of the Second Ltd. V/s.P.C.Pal, Judge of the Second Ltd. V/s.P.C.Pal, Judge of the Second Industrial Industrial Industrial Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Calcutta & Ors. reported in AIR Calcutta & Ors. reported in AIR Calcutta & Ors. reported in AIR 3 1970 1970 1970 SC 1334, SC 1334, SC 1334, in particular paragraph-12 thereof. However, as aforesaid the issue as to whether there has been reduction in work is a question of fact, which will have to be answered against the Petitioner having regard to the evidence on record in particular, of independent witness namely Tanaji Chavan. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Court below in answering the issue keeping in mind the evidence of said Tanaji Chavan. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that insofar as issue of victimisation is concerned, finding recorded by the lower Court in that regard cannot be doubted. 6. In the circumstances, Petition is devoid of merits. The same deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)