JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. 2.The petitioner challenges the Judgment and Award dated 2-5-2001, passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No. 1072 of 1995. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and payment of back wages. The impugned Award is challenged on the ground that the finding about the admission of the petitioner regarding absence of any offer being made to join the duties is contrary to the materials on record, and secondly, that the impugned Award has been passed ignoring the documentary evidence disclosing such offers having been made on the part of the petitioner and there being consistent failure on the part of the respondent to avail the opportunity given by the petitioner to the respondent to join to the duties. In that connection, reliance is also placed in the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (Sonal Garments v. Trimbak Shankar Karve)1, reported in 2002(6) Bom.C.R. 529 as well as an unreported decision in the matter of (Raju Sankar Poojary v. Chembur Warehouse Company and another)2, in Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2001, delivered on 2-7-2003 reported in 2004(1) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)160. The impugned Award, however, is sought to be justified contending that there was no cogent material placed on record disclosing any efforts on the part of the petitioner to permit the respondent to join to the services and on the contrary, the materials on record being disclosing that the respondent was prohibited from joining the services. 3.On perusal of the impugned Award, it apparently discloses that the Labour Court on the ground of admission on the part of the petitioner that it had never asked the second respondent to resume to his duties after having remained absent, and secondly, that the conciliation report does not refer to any letter by the petitioner to the respondent asking the respondent to join to his duties, the view taken by the Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence is that the respondent was not allowed to join to his duties without any justification and without taking proper recourse to the procedure of law for terminating the services of the employee and that therefore the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent. 4.Referring to the testimony of the petitioner-employer, it was sought to be contended that the same r/w the testimony of the respondent discloses that the respondent had himself remained absent without any justification and the various letters placed on record disclose the offers made by the petitioner to the respondent and further the failure on the part of the respondent to avail the offer to join to his duties. Undisputedly, apart from the letter of 14-11-1994, no other letter was referred to in the course of recording of the evidence. There was no attempt made by the petitioner to establish the service of the other letters upon the respondent, nor it was the case of the petitioner that those letters were sent by registered post and the acknowledgement of receipt of those letters was received by the petitioner. So also, the attention of the respondent was not drawn to any of those letters while the respondent was being examined before the labour Court. It is also undisputed fact that there was specific reference to the letter dated 14-11-1994 in the course of recording of the evidence of the petitioner as well as the respondent. Added to this, the testimony of the petitioner clearly discloses a statement to the effect that "I did not ask the second party workman to resume his duties after remaining absent so". This statement by the petitioner r/w the other materials on record would reveal that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court regarding failure on the part of the petitioner to establish the offer having been made to the respondent to join to the duties cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record. It is sought to be contended that referring to the letters other than those of 14-11-1994, it was possible to take a different view in the matter. However, merely because a different view is possible, that would not be a justification for interference in the findings arrived at by the Labour Court on assessment of the evidence when the view taken by the Labour Court on such an assessment cannot be said to be either perverse or totally contrary to the materials on record. However, merely because a different view is possible, that would not be a justification for interference in the findings arrived at by the Labour Court on assessment of the evidence when the view taken by the Labour Court on such an assessment cannot be said to be either perverse or totally contrary to the materials on record. Besides, as already observed above, the letters, apart from the letter dated 14-11-1994, being neither established to have been actually served upon the respondent nor even an attempt was made to draw his attention to those letters, therefore, the view taken by the Labour Court on overall assessment of the evidence cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record. 5.The decision, either in Sonal Garments case (supra) or Shri Raju Sankar Poojarys case (supra) are of no help to the petitioner in the case in hand as the facts of those cases clearly revealed that offers were made to the concerned employees by the concerned employers to join to the duties and yet the employees had not availed the opportunity thereof. That is not the case in the matter in hand and, therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be found fault with. 6.As already observed above, in the absence of any efforts on the part of the petitioner to establish the letters, apart from the letter dated 14-11-1994 in the course of recording of the evidence, and more particularly in view of the consistent stand taken by the respondent that he was obstructed from joining to his duties, no fault can be found with the Award for not giving importance to those letters, while deciding the matter. 7.For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 8.At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner requests for continuation of the stay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant continuation of the stay and therefore the request is rejected. All concerned to act on the ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate/P.S. of this Court as a true copy. Petition dismissed. -----