IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.219 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1072 OF 2009 M/s. Air Serco Pvt.Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Shri Lakkhi Singh ... Respondent Mr. S.S. Pathak with Mr. T.R. Yadav for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Kulkarni for the respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 16TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length. The contention raised is that the Labour Court ought to have framed the preliminary issue in regard to the conduct of the enquiry if having been conducted fairly and properly. This argument is without merit as after filing the written statement/reply, the company did not appear for number of hearing. The Labour Court, therefore, had no option but to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Labour Court recorded the finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and even thereafter the company has not taken steps and now the final award has been passed in regard to the back wages. The learned Single Judge has properly exercised his discretion. Keeping in view the fact that no infirmity was found in the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, no interference is called for. 2. We see no reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.