:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1863 OF 2008 M/s. Bhogavat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Shri Pandit Haribhau Kashid ..Respondent Mr. P.P. Killedar for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 24, 2008. Date : March 24, 2008. Date : March 24, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Killedar the learned counsel for the petitioner - Karkhana. The respondent - employee was dismissed from service by way of punishment as per the order dated 30/8/1988 and the dismissal order was effected from 14/8/1988. The respondent approached the Labour Court under Section 78(1)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the same came to be registered as B.I.R. Application No. 18 of 1988. Initially on the preliminary point, the Labour Court by its order dated 22/3/1993 held that the enquiry :2: conducted against the respondent was legal, valid and proper. The said order was challenged in Revision Application (B.I.R.) No. 1 of 1994 and the revision application was allowed and thus it was held that the enquiry was vitiated. Consequently, the petitioner - Karkhana was given opportunity to prove the charges levelled against the respondent by conducting an enquiry before the Labour Court and in that regard it examined four witnesses, whereas the employee examined himself and one more witness. 2. The charge against the employee was that he was absent on 24/5/1987 and was so marked in the muster roll but on 25/5/1987 when he reported for duty and while signing the muster he signed for 24/5/1987 as well. Secondly on 25/5/1987 he was seen gambling during the lunch hours at about 1.30 p.m. Both the courts below have considered the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Karkhana and more particularly Shri Suryakant Udhavrao Kashid and the evidence of the applicant’s witness Shri Bharat Krusani Khabale. Both the courts below held that the depositions of the witness of the Karkhana in the :3: examination-in-chief were contradicted in his cross-examination regarding the first charge of remaining absent on 24/5/1987 and subsequently signing the attendance for the same day on the next day i.e. 25/5/1987. Even for the second charge, two witnesses examined by the Karkhana i.e. Jayajirao Ganpatrao Shinde and Satish Shankarrao Deshmukh were relied upon. Mr.Shinde stated before the court that he came to know about the employee gambling through one Mangal Deshmukh and he had himself had not seen. In the cross-examination he admitted that when he entered the canteen he had seen the respondent-employee sitting in the canteen. The next witness Shri Satish Deshmukh stated that on 25/5/1987 while the respondent-employee was on duty, he was found playing cards in front of the canteen along with other persons and he could not name of any of those other persons. Both the courts below, therefore, held that the charges were framed and fabricated against the employee and consequently the order of dismissal was set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record the deposition copies of all the :4: witnesses examined before the Labour Court and on perusal of the same, I do not find any reason to discard the concurrent view taken by both the courts below to the effect that the charges levelled against the respondent - employee were not proved even on the preponderance of probabilities. 4. Hence, this petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)