1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2010 Shri Somnath S/o. Dadarao Dake .. petitioners Versus The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Osmanabad. .. Respondent. --- Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate holding for Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the appellant.. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 2ND MARCH, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] The appellant's date of birth, as per the certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education i.e. SSC Certificate, is 10/3/1952. The same date of birth is reported by the appellant when he joined the employment as Clerk with the respondents. Belatedly, at the fag end of the service career, the appellant filed a complaint under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unioins and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, before the Industrial Court in the year 2007. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent employer – MSRTC, filed a writ petition . The learned Single Judge, while issuing Rule, has stayed 2 the effect and operation of the judgment of the Industrial court. Aggrieved by the order granting stay, passed by the learned Single Judge, this LPA has been filed. 2] It is the case of the appellant, that he had applied in the year 1985 itself, for correction of the date of birth. However, no decision was taken thereon. The said factual position is controverted by the respondent/employer by submitting that no such application was ever made. Be that as it may, as the date of birth of the appellant has been recorded in the certificate issued by the SSC Board as 10/3/1952 and the same date of birth is entered in the service record of the appellant, we do not find any fault with the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting stay to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial court. In the event, if the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, the appellant can be adequately compensated by granting monetary benefits. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner is not likely to suffer any irreparable loss, no interference in the LPA jurisdiction is called for. In the result, LPA is dismissed. Grt/ [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] 3