1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.302 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2779 OF 1996 Shri.Sridhar M.Parab. ...Appellant. Vs. The Hindustan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S.N. Deshpande for the Appellant. Mr.S.Pandey for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2009 PC : 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the Single Judge of this court dated April 15 and 16, 2004 in Writ Petition No.2779 of 1996. By that order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed that petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 011.1995 in Appeal No.91 of 1993. The petitioner who was employed by the 2 respondent mill had approached the Labour Court under Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 by filing an Application No.1242 of 1995. His grievance was against the order of dismissal from service. That application was decided by the Labour Court by Judgment dated 30.6.1993. That application was partly allowed and the employer was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages from 26.8.1985 till the date of reinstatement within one month from the date of the order. That order was challenged before the Industrial Court by the respondent. That appeal was decided by order dated 9.1.1995. The Industrial Court held that dismissal order was duly served on the petitioner in the year 1981 and therefore, approach notice given in the year 1982 is not within the period of limitation. The appeal therefore, was allowed and the original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The learned Single Judge in her judgment in Writ Petition held that dismissal order was passed after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and 3 after holding enquiry and that dismissal order was also intimated to the petitioner and therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the services of the employee were terminated on the ground of misconduct for participation in the strike which was declared illegal. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed his reliance on the ruling reported in Changunabai Chanoo Palkar Vs. Khatau Makanji Mills Ltd. and anr. reported in 1992 1 CLR 680. He further submits that in the present case neither show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor any enquiry was held and therefore, according to him the period of limitation will not apply for issuing the approach notice. He also submits that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the show cause notice was issued and charge-sheet was served on the petitioner and the enquiry was held is not proper as there is no evidence to that effect. 4 2. In the light of these submissions, if the record is perused, it is clear that, it was the case of the management that show cause notice containing the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and it was sent to his native place under Under Certificate of Posting and that it never came back. Before the Labour Court evidence was led on behalf of the management and the witness of the management whose deposition is on record has made that statement in clear terms. Therefore, it is evident that, so far as the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is concerned, that charge sheet was issued is supported by evidence on record. The dismissal order was also sent to the appellant at his last known address. It came back with the endorsement left and therefore, the order was published in the newspaper. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that dismissal order was duly served on the petitioner by publication in the newspaper. So far as reliance placed on the above cited case is 5 concerned, admittedly, no show cause notice was issued and no enquiry was held and the order of dismissal was passed only because the workman had participated in the strike and therefore,the Division Bench held that before imposing punishment on workman for participation in the strike, an enquiry should be held and his active participation in the strike must be proved. In the present case, charge sheet was served on the petitioner for participating in the strike. He did not reply it and did not deny the charges levelled against him. In that event, the management cannot be said to have committed any wrong in issuing the dismissal order. Taking over all view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) ( R.S.MOHITE, J.)