1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.250 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3729 OF 1991 The Works Manager, Central Workshop, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Late Subhash Baburao Perkar, Through LRs: 1) Smt. Prabhawati Suresh Perkar, 2) Rajashri d/o Suresh Perkar, 3) Pallavi d/o Suresh Perkar, 4) Soniya d/o Suresh Perkar, All R/o- Chatrapati Shivaji Colony, Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mrs. Ranjana Reddy Advocate for Appellant. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the fact. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions and passed reasoned order. The Respondent had led evidence before the Labour Court in respect of the employment, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The relevant statement made by the Respondent in examination-in-chief, is quoted in Para 11 of the impugned Order, which was not controverted by the Appellant. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted even 50% of the back-wages. 3. We have perused the relevant record. We 3 have gone through the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any convincing reason to interfere in the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no mistake apparent on the face of the record, neither there is any perversity pointed out by the Appellant in the impugned Order. The Appeal is merit-less, it is accordingly dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/SEPT10/lpa250.10