-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.335 OF 2007 In WRIT PETITION NO.3952 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.456 OF 2007 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.335 OF 2007 Society for Computer Technology & Research : Appellant (Orig.Petitioner) V/s. Shri Ravindra Sarjerao Doiphode : Respondent (Orig.Respondent) ... Mr.D.J.Bhanage for the appellant. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for the respondent. ... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2008. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By an award dated 5.9.2006, the Presiding Officer, 3rd Labour Court at Pune, set aside the termination and -: 2 :- directed reinstatement of the respondent. He also found that there was no evidence produced by the management to show that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere and as no work had been performed by the workman, granted only 50% back wages. While arriving at this finding, the Labour Court held as under:- "13. In view of my above discussion I find that the IInd party was deputed by the Ist party to look after the PIAT course would not be said that he was employed by the PIAT. His termination is therefore appears to be on false ground and that to without any fault on the part of the IInd party with a view to debarred the rightfull right of IInd party workman. Thus merely offering the retrenchment compensation would not constitute the legal retrenchment because the reason of termination itself is false and malafide. Thus I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and No.2 and 3 in the negative." 3. This finding was challenged by the management by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which came to be dismissed by an -: 3 :- order of the learned single Judge dated 14.8.2007 as, according to the learned single Judge, the Labour Court had not fallen in error and affirmed the finding of fact that the respondent was employed by the society and the fact that PIAT course had been discontinued was not a ground available to the management for termination his services. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the management had complied with the provisions of section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He relied upon the letter dated 5.11.1999 that the workman had made a prayer to the society that he should be accommodated in some other office of the organisation which is a conclusive proof that he was employed against a particular project which had come to an end and, therefore, his services were liable to be terminated. 5. Both the Labour Court and the learned single Judge have recorded a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence produced which cannot be faulted. Furthermore, the letter dated 5.11.1999 itself is addressed to the society and not to PIAT. We are unable to understand the inference which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wishes to draw. We may also notice that -: 4 :- during the course of hearing, the original letter of appointment of the respondent dated 26.3.1998 was also produced before the Court. The letter clearly shows that the respondent was appointed on a regular basis by the society in Society for Computer Technology & Research, Pune, on a basic pay of Rs.762/- in the pay scale of Rs.750-940. The terms and conditions of this letter provide all benefits, including contribution of provident fund and other facilities which a regular employee of the society was entitled to. In face of these facts, it clearly clinches the issue. We see no reason to disturb the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the respondent was appointed for the society and not for PIAT course. 6. In the result, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal which is hereby dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.456 of 2007 does not survive and the same stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE -: 5 :- S.A. BOBDE, J.