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 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2002 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2002 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2002 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2002 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Appellants V/s. Smt.Shantabai Namdeo Jadhav & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.N.V. Walawalkar for the Appellants. Mr.M.R. Deshpande for the Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 24, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 24, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 24, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd February, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. That petition was also filed by the present appellant challenging the order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.1125/97. That complaint was filed by the respondent no.1 Shantabai and her son Milind. Shantabai was in the employment of the appellant-Corporation. She retired from service. She claimed that the Corporation has committed an Unfair Labour Practice by not giving employment to Milind on - 2 - preferential basis. That complaint was decided by the Industrial Court by order dated 9th November, 2001. The Industrial Court did hold that the action of the appellant of not giving employment to Milind on preferential ground, cannot be termed as Unfair Labour Practice. Still it directed the Corporation to give appointment to Milind on preferential basis relying on certain circulars issued by the Corporation. Therefore, writ petition was filed before this Court challenging that order. That writ petition was rejected in limine by the learned Single Judge. 2. Now before us, it is common ground that Milind who was directed to be appointed on preferential basis is no more and has expired. Really speaking, therefore, the order of the Industrial Court which is the basic order challenged in this appeal has become incapable of implementation or execution and therefore, appeal has become infructuous. We also find that a finding has been recorded in the order that the Corporation cannot be said to be guilty of any Unfair Labour Practice, therefore, the Industrial Court was not justified in - 3 - issuing any direction in proceedings filed under the Unfair Labour Practices Act. However, we are not required to express any final opinion because the appeal itself has become infructuous. 3. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)