1 LPA256.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KJ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.256 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9368 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. )..Appellants Vs. Gunda Pandurang Kamble & Ors. )..Respondents ­­­­ Mr. A.D.Kango AGP for the appellants. Mr. P. D.Dalvi for the respondents. ­­­­ CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 7/3/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 The only question urged before us is that the complaint as filed by the respondents was in relation to infraction of item 1­(a), (b),(d),(e), (f) & (g) of Schedule­IV of MRTU & PULP Act. 2 LPA256.10.sxw However, the Labour Court has granted relief of re­instatement and continuity of service, which according to the appellant could not have been done. The argument though attractive, will have to be stated to be rejected. In the first place, such point was not raised before the 1st Court or for that matter before the revisional court as also in Writ petition before the learned single Judge who has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant. The order dated 12.11.2009 makes no reference to such contention having been raised on behalf of the appellant. It is not the case of the learned Counsel for the appellant that such plea was taken but has not been adverted to by the learned single Judge. Secondly, the argument clearly overlooks the enabling provisions in the Act of 1971 which empowers the Labour Court to pass consequential relief on the finding to be recorded by it in relation to the complaint in question. In the present case, since the Labour Court has recorded clear finding of fact which could attract the stated items in schedule­IV of the Act of 1971, in our opinion, the Labour Court was within its authority to issue appropriate directions in the matter. 3 LPA256.10.sxw 3 In the circumstances, there is no substance in this Appeal. The same is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)