course of period of one year, she tried her luck with
ICICI Bank and other companies and thereafter purported to
return and report for work. Even that conduct has been
considered in as much the petitioner waited till 9th
September, 2002. Prior thereto it is her case that she
allegedly reported for work. The assertion in that behalf
is not substantiated at all. She has given the names of
two officers, but none of whom are examined by her. There
is nothing on record to show that on the day she allegedly
reported for work, she was told or directed to report to
another office of the respondent company. In such
circumstances, the factual finding that the petitioner has
abandoned the services and they have not been terminated
does not call for any interference as it is consistent
with the oral and documentary evidence. The oral and
documentary evidence having been appreciated by the Court
below this Court cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction as
if it is an Appellate Court. The finding of fact cannot
be said to be perverse so as to call for interference in
the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition
is dismissed.
