1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.781 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1607 OF 2007 M/s Creative Garments Ltd. .... Appellant Vs. Mr.Kashiram Varma & Anr. .... Respondents Mr.Avadhesh M. Nathani, Advocate for appellant. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh & Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 10th June, 2010 P.C. 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 6th July 2006 in Writ Petition No.1607 of 2006 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner in that petition challenges the Award made by the Labour Court in the reference made under Industrial Disputes Act granting full backwages to the respondent no.1. The learned Labour Court found that services of the first respondent was illegally terminated by the appellant without following due process of law and in contraventions of the provisions of Section 25(F) and 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The defence of the appellant was that the respondent no.1 2 had submitted his voluntary resignation, that question was examined by the Labour Court and finding of fact recorded rejecting the defence put up by the appellant. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge by his order. The learned Single Judge has observed that he has perused the entire evidence and on re-appreciation of the evidence of the Labour Court, the findings cannot be said to be perverse. In our opinion, therefore, we would not be justified in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. We find that it cannot be said that the Labour Court has left out any material from its consideration. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Labour Court was not justified in granting full backwages to the respondent no.1 and relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways and Rudhan Singh, reported in [2005(106) FLR 607]. He submits that considering the length of services of the respondent no.1, he could not have been granted full backwages. However, perusal of the Award of the Labour Court shows that this aspect of the matter was not raised by the Labour Court. It was also not raised by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, as can be seen from the order of the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, the question, therefore 3 cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal. The workman has specifically stated on oath that during the entire period, he was unemployed. Taking overall view of the matter, in our opinion, it will not be proper to interfere with the order. 2. The appeal is dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)