:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6531 OF 2007 M/s. Khosla Profile Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Dagdu G. Gotmugal and anr. ..Respondents Mr. I.R. Kulkarni for petitioners. Mr. Y.M. Pendse for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 09, 2008. Date : January 09, 2008. Date : January 09, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 31/8/2004 rendered by the 4th Labour Court at Thane thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 297 of 1998 and which judgment has been confirmed by the Industrial Court on 5/10/2006 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 90 of 2004. 2. The respondent-complainant had alleged in the complaint before the Labour Court that when he reported for duty as usual on 29/7/1997 he was :2: directed to drive a loaded vehicle No.MCY-4672 and it came to be parked at Kanjur Marg at about 7 p.m. while returning from Mumbai as it was difficult for him to drive the same. This incident was reported to the Manager immediately, but on 1/8/1997 when he reported for work he was not allowed to resume duty and he was informed that as he had damaged the vehicle, he would not be allowed to resume the duty and, therefore, there was oral termination of service. In the Written Statement filed by the respondents, present petitioners, the allegation of termination of service was denied and it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable for two reasons, namely, (a) the complainant was in service and, therefore, there was no cause of action to file the complaint and (b) the very same complainant had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 459 of 1997 and the same was withdrawn. 3. Attendance Register was produced before the Labour Court which indicated that on 30/7/1997 the complainant was present on duty but there was some overwriting in the Attendance Register in respect of :3: 30/7/1997 as well as 1/8/1997. Mr.Kulkarni the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the complainant was in service and it was so stated in the Written Statement itself, there was no reason for the Labour Court to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of an act for unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The same ground was also urged before the Industrial Court in the Revision Application. However, both the courts below have considered the evidence on record and more particularly the Attendance Register, which was tampered and recorded a finding that the complainant was not allowed to report for duty from 1/8/1997 and, therefore, it was a case of oral termination of service. These concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to cause interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)