1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.12 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7375 OF 2008 I.H.A.Sayyed .. Appellant Vs. The General Manager, B.E.S.T.Undertaking .. Respondents Mr.Dilip Mandvia for the appellant Mr.P.M.Palshikar with Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b M/s.M.V.Kini and Co. for the respondents CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : January 15, 2010 P.C. : 1. The appellant challenges the order dt.11.11.2008 passed by the learned single Judge of this court thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present petitioner, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Industrial Court. 2. The appellant was charge sheeted after he was checked and found to be carrying some aluminum strips in his bag. After the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, he was found guilty and order of dismissal was 2 passed. In a complaint filed by the petitioner, the complaint was partly allowed and the order of dismissal was set aside. Further, in the revision, the revisional court found that the petitioner had not challenged the issue of fairness of the inquiry and therefore, found that the charges were duly proved against him, as such the revision was partly allowed. The order of the Labour Court was set aside and the order of dismissal was confirmed. The said order of the Industrial Court was challenged by the workman by filing a Writ Petition in this court and the same was also dismissed. 3. The learned single Judge found that from the material on record, the charges against the appellant were duly proved. It was found that the charge of misconduct against the petitioner was of a serious nature. It was, therefore, found that no infirmity could be found with the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the petitioner. So far as the issue of forfeiture of gratuity is concerned, the learned single Judge directed the respondent herein to issue a fresh notice to the appellant and further, directed the respondent undertaking to consider afresh the issue of forfeiture of gratuity. 4. We are informed at the bar that in pursuance to the order of the learned single Judge of this court, the issue was reconsidered and the Gratuity has been paid to the petitioner. 5. We find that the learned single Judge upon the material on record found that the findings of the learned Labour Court and the learned Industrial 3 Court regarding proof of misconduct warrants no interference and therefore, we find no error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned single Judge of this court. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J)