IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3919 OF 2008 Kolhapur Municipal Corporation ..... Petitioner V/s. Shri Ganpat D. Patil ..... Respondent Shri S.S.Patwardhan, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Ganesh K. Gole, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 10, 2008. P.C. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner-Corporation has challenged the order passed by the Labour Judge, Kolhapur, dated 06-10-2005 in Complaint (ULP) No.213 of 2000, which is confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, in Revision Application (ULP) No.178 of 2005. 2. The respondent-workman moved a complaint before the Labour Court challenging the illegal termination. The Labour Court after hearing both the sides and considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the inquiry conducted by the Corporation for the charges levelled against the complainant, was not proper and the finding of Inquiry Officer is totally perverse. The Labour Court also found that the 2 respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice. On that basis, complaint was partly allowed and order of reinstatement was passed with 50% back wages. 3. The said order was challenged by way of revision application and the revisional court found that the order of the Labour Court is just and proper and that after assessing the evidence on record, the Labour Court has came to the conclusion that the finding of the Inquiry Officer was perverse. The revision application was dismissed by confirming the order of the Labour Court. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing in the matter and also gone through the orders of the court below. In my view, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error of law in appreciating the evidence on record. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons in Para No.13 of the order. The petitioner never tried to lead evidence before the Labour Court and no request in this behalf was made. The Labour Court has accordingly allowed the complaint in part by denying full back wages to the petitioner. The said order was confirmed by the revisional authority. 5. In my view, the order of the Labour Court or the revisional Court cannot be said to be contrary to the law. No interference of this Court is called for, in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the 3 Constitution of India. I do not find any substance in this petition and the same is dismissed at an admission stage. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)