1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.324 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO.371/2011 (D) (Prakash s/o Trimbakrao Ballal Vs. The Chairman, Mah. State Co-op. Marketing Federation Ltd. and another) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2011. Advocate Shri Meghe, points out that Labour Court which has delivered the judgment under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has not made party respondent before learned Single Judge. According to him, therefore, as per law laid down in Muhammed Enamul Haque Vs. Muhammad Husain, 1968 (6) Mh.L.J. NOC Page 1 and Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari and others Vs. Vishwanath Champat Naik and another, 2011 (5) Mh.L.J. 193, the provisions of Article 226 were not properly invoked. In this situation, we dispose of Letters 2 Patent Appeal. With liberty to appellant to take such steps as are open to him in law. JUDGE JUDGE NSN