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. 3968 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3968 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3968 OF 2008 Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar & anr. ... Petitioners v/s M/s.Ultra Drytech Engineering Ltd. & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Suhas Oak i/by Mr.Sagar Joshi for the petitioners. Mr.Sudhir Talsania i/by R.M.Pande & Co. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 28TH AUGUST, 2008 28TH AUGUST, 2008 28TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The Labour Court has found that the termination of services of the employees was proper and that there was no unfair labour practices as complained under Item 1(a)(b)(d) & (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Industrial Court has confirmed this order in revision. Both the Courts below have held that the complainants, the petitioners herein had been terminated from service after complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my view, the Courts below have not committed any error by 2 concluding that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The Courts below have also found that the seniority list was displayed and that the petitioners had been terminated from service by following the rule of "last come first go". In my view, therefore, there is no need to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below. 2. While dismissing the complaint, the Labour Court had directed thus - "2. The respondents are hereby urged that if there is work available in the company then the said work shall be given to the retrenched workmen as per their seniority list instead of giving the said work to the contract labour." 2. If in fact the respondents have not observed this part of the order, the petitioners cannot file the present petition to execute that order. 3. Writ petition stands rejected.