1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1088 OF 2009 M/s. Modern Petrofils ..Petitioners V/s Smt. Darshana Hemant Tamore ..Respondent ---- Ms. A.R.S.Baxi for the petitioners. Mr.V. J.Ambekar for the respondent. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 3rd November, 2009. PC 1 This is a petition filed by the original employer impugning a judgment of the labour court allowing reference and directing the employer to re-instate the workman with continuity of service and 50% back-wages w.e.f. 1st January 2001. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that no demand notice was served and in the circumstances, there was no industrial dispute in existence. In this connection, it is seen that the workman had produced a copy of the demand notice dated 16.11.2001. It is true that workman has not produced acknowledgment of service of the said demand notice. However, taking into account the subsequent events including the immediate filing of the claim by the workman on 23.1.2001 the labour court has come to a finding of fact that a demand notice was in fact, served. The finding of the labour court is that in the conciliation proceedings the petitioners did not remain present though they have been served with the notice. In such circumstances, it is open and it would not be proper to the High Court, in the writ 2 jurisdiction, to substitute the finding of fact to the effect that demand notice was in fact served. It was then sought to be contended that the petitioners-employer had issued letters calling upon the respondent to join the services. However, on perusal of the evidence, I find that there is no offer specifically asking the respondent to join services. It appears that offer was made first time in the written statement. In this view of the matter, in my view, it is not a fit case to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Hence, petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3