1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6102 OF 2009 M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ..Petitioner. Vs. Vijay Maruti Nadar and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Kiran Bapat i/by M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Vinod Shetty & Miss. Ketaki Rege for the Respondents. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a petition filed by the employer impugning a judgment and award dated 3.11.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai and confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court by its Judgment and Award dated 5.3.2009. The workman in question was working as a loader at International Air Port Sahar. It is the case of the employer that on 11.3.2001 he was caught red handed with a stolen digital diary. It is their case that he had stolen 2 the digital diary from the baggage of a passenger. Labour Court, Mumbai concluded that this was a case where there was no material to show that the digital diary was stolen. The workman was accosted by Mr. Joshi who was Assistant Supervisor working with the employer. It is their case that when the workman was asked, he initially stated that the said diary was belonging to him but later on confessed both before Mr. Joshi and subsequently before some superior officers that he had stolen the said digital diary. A statement recording this fact signed by Mr. Joshi was prepared by the employer. This statement was admittedly not got signed by the workman. No passenger lodged a complaint that his digital diary was stolen. Even after recording the statement of the workman, no FIR was lodged with the police station which is near the Air Port. Mr. Joshi who had accosted the workman filed his examination in chief before the Enquiry Officer but could not be cross examined as according to the employer he was assaulted and 3 therefore, he refused to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Joshi also did not appear before the Labour Court as a witness for the employer. It was contended that another officer of the employer was witness to the recording of the statement offered by Mr. Joshi. The name of this witness was Krishna Palan. It was also contended that after about a period of one month employee had produced a receipt of M/s. Simla Stationary Mart to prove purchase of the digital diary. It was contended that the employer had obtained a certificate from the said seller indicating that they had not sold the said diary. As regards this circumstance, it is to be noticed that the person who had obtained the said certificate from the stationary mart was not examined in order to establish that the said stationary mart had issued a certificate. It is seen that in this background two lower courts had come to the concurrent finding that there is insufficient evidence and material on record to prove the misconduct. This being a purely 4 question of fact, I do not find any sufficient grounds to hold that the finding is perverse. No interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)