- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO.49 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1787 OF 2007 ... Premchand ...Appellant v/s. The National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL) ...Respondent ... Mr.Manoj Vishwakarma i/b M/s.MKV Juris for the Appellant. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. - 2 - DATED: 1ST APRIL, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Appellant was in the service of the Respondent. Departmental inquiry was held against him for continuous absent for long time. As the Industrial dispute was pending, after issuing dismissal order approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was sought. The Industrial Tribunal held that the inquiry has not been properly held. That order was challenged in this court in Writ Petition No.350 of 2005. The learned single Judge reversed the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and held that the inquiry was valid and remanded the matter back to the tribunal to consider whether in the departmental inquiry charge has been proved. The Appellant was permitted to file additional affidavit. He filed additional affidavit. The tribunal, thereafter, considering the evidence on record made an order dated 23-2-2006. The tribunal recorded a finding that in the departmental inquiry the charge was proved against the Appellant. That order was challenged before this court by the Appellant by filing Writ Petition No.1787 of 2007. - 3 - That petition has been rejected by the learned single Judge of this court by order dated 24th March, 2008. This appeal is, therefore, filed challenging that order passed by the learned single Judge. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the additional affidavit and material produced in the additional affidavit, which was filed after the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.350 of 2005 has not been taken into consideration by the Industrial Tribunal. The Order of the National Industrial Tribunal, specially paragraph 9, shows that the entire material that has been produced by the Appellant has been taken into consideration. The tribunal has found that the Appellant has not produced any doctor’s certificate advising him not to attend the duty. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that because the Appellant was residing at Gazibad, which is 60 km away from his place of service, he could not attend the duty though the doctor did not advise him to take rest. But the record shows that on 15-6-1998 the Appellant visited the doctor and doctor merely prescribed him some drugs, but did not advise him to take any rest. Similar is the position on other dates. The tribunal - 4 - has recorded a finding of fact that the Appellant has not been able to prove by producing medical evidence that he was unable to attend the duty because of his ill-health. It is a finding of fact, which is confirmed by the learned single Judge after perusing the record. We do not find any room to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal. Appeal has no substance. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)