IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.572 OF 2005. M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Limited .. Petitioner. v/s. Krishnaprasad N. Sapkota & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.J.P.Cama with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Palshikar for respondent No.1 CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED :3RD MARCH, 2005. DATED :3RD MARCH, 2005. DATED :3RD MARCH, 2005. P.C. : 1. As far back as on April 29, 2003, the Labour Court in its part I Award held that while the inquiry was consistent with the principles of natural justice, the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse. Accordingly, an opportunity was given to the management to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct. Nearly two years have elapsed since then and a challenge is now preferred to the part I Award. The Court would not in these facts be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, since after the final Award of the Tribunal it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the award, it it becomes necessary, on all counts including the correctness of the view of the Tribunal in the Part I award dated April 29, 2003. That apart, it appears from the roznama of the Tribunal which is placed on the record by counsel for the first respondent that on November 4, 2004 an adjournment was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the witness of the company was unable to remain present for personal reasons. On November 30, 2004 the management undertook to keep its witness present on the next date of hearing. On January 24, 2005 an adjournment was sought on the ground of counsel appearing for the company. The parties have, acted upon the impugned award dated April 29, 2003 and the matter is now ripe for trial at the part II stage. 2. In the circumstances, the interference at this stage is not called for. The Petition is rejected. (DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)