IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1787 OF 2007 Premchand s/o late Pooran Chand ...Petitioner V/s. National Aviation Co.of India Ltd. ...Respondent ...... Mr.Pravin Patel i/b MKV Juris for Petitioner. Mr.S.M.Dixit with Ms.Prerna Janvekar i/b Ms.Chhaya Shah for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 24, 2008. MARCH 24, 2008. MARCH 24, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I find no merits in this Petition. There is no dispute that the order which is impugned in this Writ Petition emanates on account of order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion between the parties in Writ Petition No.350 of 2005 decided on 10th March 2005. 3. The scope of proceedings before the lower : 2 : Court was limited to pass orders on the basis of conclusion reached by this Court in its order dated 10th March 2005. No new contention could be addressed which would travel beyond the scope of remand direction issued by this Court. Thus understood, no fault can be found in the decision of the Tribunal in approving the Application preferred by the Respondent Management on the finding that the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate nor it suffers from lacuna, for which, its action may not be approved, since it is passed by competent Authority in accordance with law and after complying the mandatory procedure. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner was at pains to persuade me to take the view that this was a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice and the decision of the competent Authority of dismissal was wholly unwarranted. 5. In the first place, the question whether there has been a case of breach of principles of natural justice, that issue must have been : 3 : addressed in the earlier proceedings between the parties in Writ Petition No.350 of 2005 decided on 10th March 2005. Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that this aspect is not specifically addressed on the earlier occasion. It is not possible to countenance this submission in absence of copy of the High Court order to substantiate this contention, which is not placed on record by the Petitioner. 6. In any case, assuming that such a plea has not been addressed in the earlier order dated 10th March 2005, the fact remains that the said plea was available to the Petitioner on the earlier occasion, which having not pressed, cannot be permitted to be raised at this belated stage. The decision dated 10th March 2005 of this Court in the earlier round of Writ Petition between the parties has become final. The Petitioner has not questioned the correctness of the said decision, but instead, submitted to the said decision by participating in the remand proceedings before the Tribunal. In my view, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. : 4 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.