1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.124 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10838 OF 2009 Joint Director, Health Services (Malaria, Filaria and Water Borne Diseases), Pune and another. ... Appellants Versus Shri Tanaji Ramrao Kothare ... Respondent Mr. A.B. Kango, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellants. Mr. K.B. Sonwalkar for respondent. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By consent appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 3. The respondent­employee has filed complaint under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 against the appellants with a grievance that inspite of having completed more than 240 days of 2 service, he had not been given appointment order and made permanent which be declared as unfair labour practice. 4. The stand taken by the appellant (respondent) was that it is not an industry and it had not committed any unfair labour practice whereupon the learned Industrial Court after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant­employer ought to have employed the respondent­complainant as a permanent worker as soon as he has completed 240 days and as the appellant­original respondent has indulged in the practice of engaging respondent­employee­original complainant as temporary for years together so as to avoid permanency, therefore, they have committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and partly allowed the complaint by directing the appellants­original respondents to give the order of permanency to the complainant from the date of order and give benefits of permanency to the complainant. 5. This was challenged by the appellants by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dismissed the petition at the stage of admission primarily on the ground of delay. 6. In our view, it was not proper to have summarily dismissed the petition without examining the merits of the matter as the matter raises important issue which will have far reaching implications. 3 7. Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and restore the petition with a request to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits after hearing the learned counsel for parties. 8. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.