WP/6910/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6910 OF 2010 Kolhapur Mahanagar Palika Parivahan ... Petitioner V/s. Ramchandra Dattoba Tiruke & anr. ... Respondents Mr.A. Nikam for Petitioner Mr.P.P. Chavan i/b R.R. Chile for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 13, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court on 30.9.2009. By its award part I, the Labour Court had found that the enquiry which was held against the Respondent was fair and proper. By award part II, the Labour Court instead of framing an issue as to whether the finding was perverse has framed the issue as to whether the findings are unjustified. 2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner takes exception to the words used in the aforesaid issue. According to him, the findings which are unjustified need not be perverse. 3. This submission of the learned advocate cannot be accepted. If the findings are perverse they certainly will be unjustified. In my view, the Labour Court has on a WP/6910/2010 : 2 : proper appreciation of facts noted that the conductor of the bus who was the best witness when the alleged altercation took place between the driver and the co- employee who was travelling on the bus has stated in his evidence that he came to know of this incident two or three days later. 4. In my view, the Industrial Court has committed no error by granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. 5. Petition is therefore rejected.