bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6512 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6512 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6512 OF 2008 Bharat Venkat Yeshwantrao ... Petitioner v/s 1. Divl. Traffic Superintendent, M.S.R.T. Corpn. & anr. ... Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order of the Labour Court which is passed on the application for interim relief in Complaint (ULP) No.30 of 2007. This order has been confirmed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.13 of 2008. 2. The petitioner has filed the complaint under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) & (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The workman was dismissed from service as he was found guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him. The Labour Court has found that the petitioner has not been able to prove "any prima facie case of unfair labour practice" on the 2 part of the respondents and, therefore, the interim relief has been refused. A similar view has been taken by the Industrial Court. 3. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact which, no doubt, are prima facie. Both the Courts below have not committed any error of law nor do the orders suffer from any perversity and, therefore, no interference is required by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is obvious that all the conclusions drawn by both the Courts below are prima facie and would not bind the Labour Court while disposing of the complaint. 5. Writ petition rejected.