1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 1246 OF 2009 . Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..Petitioners. vs. Mr. Vasant Laxman Chougule. ..Respondent. .... Mr. P.M. Palshikar, i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., for Petitioners. Ms. Prerna C. Janvekar, for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 11 TH AUGUST 2009. P.C. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners impugning the legality and validity of the order dated 10 th December 2008, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, whereunder the judgments of the 8 th Labour Court, Mumbai dated 17 th March 2003, 18 th October 2003 and 15 th June 2004 are set aside and application (BIR) No. 45/1997 is remanded to the 8 th Labour Court, Mumbai for deciding the same on all issues in accordance with law. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has 2 contended that the Industrial Court ought not to have entertained any of the submissions of the respondent no.1 qua the orders dated 17 th March 2003 and 18 th October 2003 because in the order dated 17 th March 2003, the preliminary issue i.e. whether the inquiry conducted by the petitioners was fair and proper, was finally answered in favour of the petitioners. The review application preferred therefrom by respondent no.1 was also dismissed by order dated 18 th October 2003. The petitioners did not further impugn the order dated 18 th October 2003 and thereby accepted the final decision qua the said preliminary issue. It is, therefore, submitted that the said two orders dated 17 th March 2003 and 18 th October 2003 could never have been impugned before the Industrial Court, Mumbai and the Industrial Court, Mumbai whilst impugning the final order dated 15 th June 2004 passed in (BIR) No.45 of 1997 and the Industrial Court ought not to have entertained the challenge to the said two orders dated 17 th March 2003 and 18 th March 2003 by respondent no.1. 3. Admittedly, respondent no.1 in their Appeal (I.C.) No.46 3 of 2006 had impugned the said two orders dated 17 th March 2003 and 18 th October 2003 alongwith the final order dated 15 th June 2004 and had inter-alia advanced their arguments in respect of the said two orders before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. Admittedly, the petitioners did not raise any objections/ dispute pertaining to the same and allowed the challenge to the said orders dated 17 th March 2003 and 18 th October 2003 being decided by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. Therefore, the arguments now advanced on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioners for interference under Article 226. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]