1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1760 OF 2008 Keshav Punja Sumara ..Petitioner. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. B.J. Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr. A.J. Bhor for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 15th April, 2008. P.C. : While dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practices the Labour Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on the record that the charge of misconduct was duly established. While being employed in the Municipal Corporation, the Petitioner had also simultaneously been employed in the Reserve Bank of India between May 1982 and December 1987. The details of the salary received by the Petitioner were remitted by the Reserve Bank of India. The Labour Court noted that as a matter of fact the Petitioner had also admitted to the true state of 2 affairs in his statements dated 18th June, 1988, 17th August, 1988 and 6th March, 1990. The identity of the complainant as the same employee who was engaged with the Reserve Bank of India was found to be established. The Industrial Court has affirmed this conclusion on revision and has noted that while working with the Municipal Corporation the Petitioner had simultaneously worked with the Reserve Bank of India at the Fort office. Prior permission of the Municipal Corporation was not taken and there was a breach of the service regulations. The second charge which has also been duly established is that the Petitioner had sublet the rent free service accommodation allotted to him which was being used for nefarious purposes. The finding which has been arrived at is not shown to be perverse. This Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 would not be justified in substituting the view taken by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the evidence on the record, particularly when both the Courts below have held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that there was no perversity in the findings or the penalty imposed. There is no merit in the Petition which is accordingly dismissed. 3 ****