-= : 1 : =- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.4429 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4429 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4429 OF 2005 Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Mukesh Maruti Patil & Ors. ..Respondents. AND AND AND WRIT PETITON NO.4430 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4430 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4430 OF 2005 Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Suryakant Shankar Shinde & Ors. ..Respondents. AND AND AND WRIT PETITON NO.4431 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4431 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4431 OF 2005 Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Rajendra Bhimrao Bhosale & Ors. ..Respondents. AND AND AND WRIT PETITON NO.4432 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4432 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4432 OF 2005 Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Jaywant Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. ..Respondents. AND AND AND WRIT PETITON NO.4433 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4433 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4433 OF 2005 Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Rajesh Laxman Dhotmal & Ors. ..Respondents. -= : 2 : =- AND AND AND WRIT PETITON NO.4434 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4434 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4434 OF 2005 Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Sachin Sharad Tatugade & Ors. ..Respondents. AND AND AND WRIT PETITON NO.4436 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4436 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.4436 OF 2005 Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Mahesh Madhukar Malishilwant & Ors...Respondents. Mr.K.S.Bapat for petitioners in all the petitions. Mr.Vinod Jadhav for respondent No.1. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused petition. 2. Mr.Bapat, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the synopsis of his argument produced at Exh.A, which exhaustively attempts to make out a case of no jurisdiction in favour of the Labour Court to decide the question of employer-employee relationship. Similar arguments were reiterated before the Industrial Court, -= : 3 : =- Satara. The Industrial Court has dealt each and every aspect of the submissions advanced with reasons after taking survey of the Judgments holding the field and has rightly come to the conclusion that the complaint is maintainable. 3. The view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable and possible view. This Court not being a Court of appeal is not expected to interfere with it. 4. All the petitions are, therefore, dismissed in limine for reasons recorded in the impugned order, reiteration thereof is not necessary. No order as to costs. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents at this stage pointed out that complaints are pending since 2001 for trial and prayed for direction for expeditious disposal. The Labour Court is directed to hear and dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. *******