IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.324 OF 2008 Ananatharaman Krishna Mani ...Petitioner V/s. M/s.Ion Exhange (India) Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Gayatri Singh for Petitioner. Mr.P.C.Pawaskar for Respondent No.1. Ms.Uma Palsule Desai, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I find no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court below on the question of fact that the Petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The argument of the Petitioner that the : 2 : Court below has not recorded a clear finding on the analysis of the evidence which has come on record, is ill-advised. This submission clearly overlooks that the Court below has not only adverted to the evidence of the Petitioner from page 195 but also to the evidence of the Respondent management witnesses, in particular, to the admission of the Petitioner in the cross-examination. All those matters are culled out from pages 195 to 207 of the impugned Judgment. I find no merits in the submission that any evidence which was crucial in the context of the issue in question has been overlooked by the Court below. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner took me through the evidence without specifically pointing out as to which evidence has not been considered by the Court below so as to take the view that it is a case of error apparent on the face of the record or perverse finding of fact reached by the Court below. The argument that there is no clear evidence to conclusively hold that the Petitioner was not a workman, is only inviting the Court to reappreciate the evidence on record, which has : 3 : already done by the Court below. 5. In my opinion, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction against finding of fact especially when the view taken by the Court below is a possible view. Some mistake here or there in the Judgment cannot be the basis to exercise writ jurisdiction. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.