:1: :1: :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.1947 OF 2009 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay .. Petitioner. Vs. Pandharinath Babu Ghuge .. Respondent. Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Advocate a/w Mrs.Kavita Anchan i/b M/s.M.V.Kini & Co.for the petitioner. Ms.Rita Joshi i/b A.D.Shetty for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, both dated 15.5.2007 and 2.4.2008, concurrently holding that the enquiry conducted against the respondent-worker was not fair and proper and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse. Mr.Talsania, learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that non furnishing of list of witnesses alongwith charge-sheet cannot cause any prejudice to the charge sheeted workmen and it does not amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. Both the courts below were wrong in holding that the enquiry :2: :2: :2: was not fair and proper, merely because list of witnesses was not furnished to the respondent. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment in Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. Vs. M.R.Bhope Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. Vs. M.R.Bhope Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. Vs. M.R.Bhope and Anr. 1994(3) Bom.C.R. 436 and Anr. 1994(3) Bom.C.R. 436 and Anr. 1994(3) Bom.C.R. 436. He submitted that it did not cause any prejudice to the respondent. It is true that list of the witnesses was not furnished to the respondent-worker. But, apart from that the post mortem report and the medical papers were also not placed on record during the enquiry and that the procedure was not explained by the enquiry officer to the respondent. Moreover, it appears from the observations made in paragraph 10 of the order of the Labour Court dated 15.5.2007, the enquiry officer did not allow the respondent-workman to call his witnesses. It is against this backdrop the courts below held that the principles of natural justice have not been followed and that the enquiry conducted against the respondent is not fair and proper. In my opinion, the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and they warrant no interference by this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Even the judgment relied upon by Mr.Talsania, learned senior counsel in Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. case is of no avail to the petitioner in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds on :3: :3: :3: which both the courts below held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Moreover, this court is informed that the Labour Court has already granted leave to the petitioner to adduce the evidence. In the circumstances I find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)