: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 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 15416 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 15416 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 15416 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2007 M/s Nutan Khandesh Roadlines ..Appellant versus Kailash H. Yadav ..Respondent Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for the Appellant. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2. Vide Award dated 7.7.2007, the Eleventh Labour Court at Mumbai, in Application (IDA) No. 72 of 2003 directed the present Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.75,700/- as back wages and daily allowance to the workman and also held that the amount should be paid in one month failing which they would be liable to pay interest. This order was challenged by the present Appellant by filing a Writ Petition being :2: Writ Petition No. 6289 of 2007 which came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the Writ Petition vide Order dated 17.3.2008. Aggrieved from that order, the Appellant filed the present LPA. 3. The short argument raised before us is that the workman - claimant failed to discharge onus to establish that there was a relationship of employer and employee and that the claimant - present Appellant was owner of the truck in question. It is a matter of clear appreciation of evidence. Both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had relied upon the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record and held in favour of the workman. Both the Courts have decided against the Appellant. 4. The claimant - owner has not only produced the evidence but has examined co-workman to establish that he was working with him and that the vehicle was owned by the present Appellant. It is a settled principle of law that this court will not interfere any appreciation of evidence clearly on the ground that another view is possible. No merit in the LPA, dismissed. :3: 5. In view of dismissal of the LPA, C.A. No. 243 of 2008 does not survive for consideration, hence dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J.