:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5770 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 5770 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 5770 OF 1997 Pandhari Balvant Adhav ..Petitioner versus Kishore Industries, through their Proprietor L. N. Gangji ..Respondent Mr. M. R. Deshpande for the Petitioner. Mr. Sudhir C. Halli for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of two Courts below to the effect that the charges are proved against him and therefore there is no unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent - employer. 3. The petitioner was working as a Helderman with the respondent factory. His services came to be terminated for proved grievous misconduct in a departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent. :2: He is found to have deliberately been neglecting and indifferent with his duties; and disobeying lawful orders given by the superiors while being deliberately slow in performance of his duties. 4. Before the Labour Court, apparently the petitioner challenged his termination on the ground that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The Labour Court found that the petitioner had neither replied to the notices nor the charge sheet served on him. He did not attend the proceedings in the departmental enquiry conducted on 1.7.1986 and 4.7.1986 and further he gave no reason to the Enquiry Officer for justifying his absence. In these circumstances, the Labour Court found that the respondents have not breached any provisions of natural justice. 5. The Industrial Court, where the petitioner filed a Revision, has also examined the matter and has come to the conclusion that there is no violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioner did not reply to the notices, nor did he attend the enquiry; in fact he did not even replied to the charge sheet. :3: 6. Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notices were not properly served. In fact this is a pure question of fact, which does not seem to have been agitated before the Courts below. Hence, I decline to go into it. Moreover, after inspecting the record, this point was not pressed much further by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. Rule disposed of accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)