1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.137 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3110/2001(D) (Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and another ..Vs.. Zilla Parishad Mahila Parichar Maha Sangh, Maharashtra and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.D. Raut, Advocate for the appellants, Shri Rohit Deo Advocate for respondent No.1, Shri N.W. Sambre, G.P. for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : 13.4.2 011 . This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-11-2009 of the learned Single Judge of dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 2. The main contention before the learned Single Judge was that the Industrial Court ought not to have allowed the respondents’ prayer for being covered by the Government Resolution dated 05-4-1990 and to extend the benefits of the said Government Resolution to the Female Attendants who are assisting auxiliary Nurse Midwife. One of the contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that there was prayer for declaration for indulged in unfair labour practice 2 as required under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 3. The learned Single Judge has observed that though the prayer clause of the complaint was defective, both the parties were aware of the issue involved and challenged in the complaint. The learned Single Judge has found that contrary to the appellants’ case the respondents were appointed on consolidated pay and not on honorarium as claimed by the appellants. Further the appellants also failed to lead any evidence that they were merely implementing a scheme framed by the State Government. 4. In the circumstances, the appeal does not warrant any interference in the appellate jurisdiction and hence dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma