IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6459 O PETITION NO. 6459 O PETITION NO. 6459 OF 2005 2005 2005 Ashrf Jalaluddin & anr. .. Petitioner V/s. M/s P.T.I.Ltd & ors. ..Respondents Shri C.U. Singh with Ms.Jane Cox for the petitioner. Shri J.P.Cama for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. DATE: DATE: DATE: 20.12.2005. 20.12.2005. 20.12.2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned Counsel fore the petitioner. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.2005 in Complaint (ULP) No. 627/2004 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing the complaint for the reasons stated therein. 3. I have gone through the impugned order and having examined the reasons in support of the order, the view taken by the Industrial Court is a reasonable and possible view. The impugned order cannot be said to be a perverse order. Merely because second view may be possible cannot be a ground to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I concur with the reasons recorded in the impugned order and for the reasons recorded therein, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for stay of this order. The order of the Industrial Court is dismissal of the complaint whereas this order is an order of dismissal of the petition. In that view of the matter, I see no propriety in staying this order. Prayer made is thus, rejected. . In the result, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.