: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.4741 OF 2008 Sunil Bhagwan Hanchate .. Petitioner. Vs. The President, Purva Vibhag Sarvajanik Vachanalaya, Solapur .. Respondent. Mr.Anand Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Mulye for the respondents. 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 writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur in revision application (ULP) No.18 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the revision filed by the respondent-employer has been allowed and the judgment and order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the Labour Court has been set aside. I have perused the impugned judgment and more particularly paragraph 7 thereof. It appears, the order of the Labour Court dated 20.8.2000 by which the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner has been held to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice was not :2: :2: :2: challenged by the petitioner. Perusal of the judgment of the labour court shows that the charges of negligence in duties, misappropriation of certain amounts and arrogant behaviour with the superiors have been proved by the respondent-employer. Despite these findings the labour court held that the respondent-employer engaged in unfair labour practice under item 1(g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act and the petitioner has been reinstated with continuity of service. The Industrial Court, on the other hand, after having considered the findings of the labour court in respect of the misconduct and considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T.Mane, 2004 III C.L.R. 772 held that the respondent-employer lost confidence and faith in the petitioner in view of the misappropriation of certain amounts, and set aside the judgment of the labour court dated 10.1.2002 and dismissed the complaint instituted by the respondent. I find absolutely no merit in the petition. For the reasons recorded in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)