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 NO.9 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.9 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.9 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.6309 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6309 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6309 OF 2008 Ashiwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre ..Appellants. V/s. Ashok Bhujanga Vhotkar ..Respondent. Mr.C.U.Singh with Neel Helekar i/b. M/s.Haresh Mehta & Co. for appellants. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that they have duly served the notice upon the respondent. However, despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. 2. In the present appeal, the appellants have taken exception to the legality and correctness of the order dated 12th December, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was rejected. - = : 2 : = - The principal argument is that in paragraph 2 of the order, the learned Single Judge has concluded and recorded a finding that participation in the hunger strike by itself is not an act of misconduct unless it was demonstrated some violent actions or participation in some other illegal activities by him while sitting on hunger strike. It is contended that these observation preclude the right of the appellant to lead evidence before the appropriate forum to establish that it was a misconduct and in any case where the Court has only recorded a finding which was recorded by the Courts below, they have the right of leading evidence before Labour Court to show that the act of the respondent would amount to misconduct. 3. Be that as it may, we do not wish to interfere in the impugned order but only clarify that the paragraph Nos.2 & 3 are prima facie observations of the Court and the disposal of the Writ Petition would not bar the appellant at this stage of the right to lead evidence before the Labour Court. Obviously, the Labour Court will consider the same in accordance with law. 4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. - = : 3 : = - 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J.