1 APP105.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.105 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1183 OF 2008 KJ Mr.Virendra Dube )..Appellant Vs. Leela Kempinski M/s.Hotel Leela Ventures )..Respondents ---- Mr.Rajesh Gehani for the appellant. Mr.J.P.Cama Senior Counsel @ Atman Mehta & Ms.Sharandeep Sarda i/by Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondents. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 31/3/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 This appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 21.7.2008 in Writ Petition No. 2 APP105.11.sxw 1183 of 2008. The learned single Judge has adverted to the finding of fact recorded by the lower court that the appellant was doing job which was supervisory in nature. This opinion recorded by the learned single judge is essentially assailed before us. However, on perusing the judgment of the lower court, we are in agreement with the opinion recorded by the learned single Judge that the lower court has conclusively found that the job discharged by the appellant as a captain in the restaurant was supervisory in nature. That can be seen from the discussion amongst other from paragraph-25 onwards of the decision of the labour court. The labour court has reproduced the evidence adduced by both parties on the said issue and after analysing the same, has recorded finding of fact in the above terms. The view so taken by the labour court being a possible view, question of reversing the said finding of fact or indulging in re-appreciation of evidence on record to hold that another view was possible, cannot be resorted to. 3 In our opinion, there is no substance in this appeal. Once the said finding of fact is to be upheld, it necessarily follows that the 3 APP105.11.sxw appellant was not workman within the meaning of definition workman. Hence, this appeal fails. The same is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)