{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8483 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Keshav Ganpat Tainak Respondent Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8484 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Shaikh Mohd. Sk. Noor Respondent Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8485 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners {2} Versus Kedare Kantrao Narayanrao Respondent Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8486 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Eknath Vithal Khade Respondent Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8822 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Vijay Digambar Joshi Respondent Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8823 OF 2010 {3} The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus P.L.Rajurkar Respondent Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8824 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Nandkumar Nanasaheb Kulkarni Respondent Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8825 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Laxman Sataji Khillare Respondent {4} Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8826 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Mahadu Karbhari Giram Respondent Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P for petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8827 OF 2010 The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Labhshetra Vikas Pradhikaran, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad & another Petitioners Versus Vasant Manohar Mitkari Respondent Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P for petitioners. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29 th September, 2010 PER COURT: {5} 1 The order passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Nanded, on 30.06.2009, is subjected to challenge by the State in the instant petitions. 2 Respondents-employees tendered applications to the Commissioner of Labour for referring the dispute to the Labour Court. The grievance of Respondents-employees was that action of termination of services taken against employees on 01.10.1984 is illegal and bad in law. The employees, as such, claimed reinstatement with back wages. 3 The Judge of the Labour Court, after considering rival contentions of the parties, found that the employees are not entitled for reinstatement, however, directed the employer to pay compensation. Employees were also held entitled for retrenchment compensation as per Rules. The order passed by the Judge, Labour Court, was subjected to challenge at the instance of some employees, in Writ Petition No.7583/2009. The employer was also party to the writ petition and after hearing the rival contentions raised by respective parties, this Court, by order dated 17.11.2009, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the employees and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judge of Labour Court. This Court, in paragraph no.3, has also made a reference to the reasons recorded by the Labour Court while granting retrenchment compensation as well as damages. Reliance is placed on the {6} reported judgments in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Arjunlal Rajak (LLJ 2006, 104) and in the case of Ministry of Textile Vs. Murari Lal (2008 II CLR 784), while disposing of Writ Petition tendered by employees. 4 In view of stamp of approval to the order passed by the Labour Court, by this Court, while dismissing the petition preferred by the employees, interference in the instant petitions, presented at the instance of employer, will not be appropriate. Writ Petitions are devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petitions stand dismissed. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp848310