1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.90/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4442/2009 (D) [Mrs. Nirmala w/o Digambar Mahadeokar .vrs. Z.P. Bhandara and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 04, 2011. Heard Shri M.P. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellate, Mrs. M.P. Munshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned AGP for respondent no.2 finally. After hearing respective counsel, we find that challenge to order passed under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “MRTU & PULP Act”) on 31.12.2006 was included in Writ Petition No. 4442/2009 and the contention looked into by the learned Single Judge on behalf of employer that there was no challenge to that order by the present 2 appellant, therefore, does not appear to be correct. Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1, however, states that it was specifically pointed out to learned Single Judge that there is no challenge to this order dated 31.12.2006 and in reply, appellant did not point out that challenge to assail the findings on the ground that in Section 50 of MRTU & PULP Act, earlier direction issued by the learned Industrial Court under section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act could not have been modified. Shri Jaiswal has also invited attention to this court to order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned Single Judge while dismissing of preliminary objections. He contends that no objection in this respect was raised before the learned Single Judge. Perusal of the judgment impugned before us revealed that impression of learned Single Judge that the judgment and order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court. Nagpur in Complaint (ULPN) No.394/2002 was only assailed in that writ petition. The copy of writ petition produced before this court shows the prayer to quash and set aside even later order dated 31.12.2006 in Misc. Application (PULP) No.173/2006. Though the word by Industrial Court, Nagpur are added by hand, dates 3 of both orders with their respective ULPAs are in print. Hence, we are satisfied that attention of this court was then not invited to the specific challenge raised in the petition. Therefore, with liberty to appellant to point out all these aspects to the learned Single Judge, we dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande