1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LPA STAMP NO. 20852 OF 2009 M.S.R.T.C.,Parbani .. Petitioner/s Versus Sheshrao Ramrao Rokadewad .. Respondent/s. --- Mr. Anand D. Wange, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : - 1st October, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Appeal taken up for hearing on admission. 2] Heard Shri Wange, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant herein challenges the order dated 8th May,2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 175/2002, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present appellant. 3] The respondent/employee had filed a complaint bearing No. 81/1995 claiming unfair labour practice by the appellant, alleging that the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. The learned Judge of the Labour Court found that the dismissal from service was a harsh penalty and that the respondent could not be held accountable to a serious kind of misconduct. On a finding that that the accident for which the 2 respondent/employee was held to be guilty was not caused on account of the negligence on the part of the complainant, the learned Labour Court, allowed the complaint and granted reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith 50 % of the back wages. 4] The said order came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned Industrial Court. The Industrial Court also dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved thereby, a writ petition was filed by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge bearing W.P. No. 175/2002. 5] The learned Single Judge,while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has found that no perversity could be noticed with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court and the Industrial court. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6] We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly found that no case was made out for interference with the concurrent finding of fact, arrived at by the courts below. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 3