1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.101 OF 2009 The General Manager, Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad and anr. .. Appellants Versus Pralhad s/o Kisan Choudhary .. Respondent Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for appellants Shri Anand V.Patil, Advocate for respondent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 4th August 2009 PER COURT : 1. This letters patent appeal under Clause 15 of the letters patent has been filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.4.2009, in Writ Petition No.1098 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed by the present appellant questioning therein the orders passed by the Labour Court dated 19.9.2008 and confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court by its order dated 2.1.2009. 2. The appellant herein had filed the aforesaid writ petition before the learned Single Judge questioning the order of the labour Court, which by 2 an interim order had directed the reinstatement of the present respondent. The appellants filed revision before the Industrial Court which came to be dismissed by the order of the Industrial Court dated 2.1.2009. The learned Single Judge while examining the writ petition, found that since there was no perversity in reasons of the two authorities below which were concurrent, it would not be permissible to interfere in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. We have heard Shri Dhage, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Anant Patil on behalf of respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any ground warranting any interference in this appeal. We accordingly dismiss the letters patent appeal. We, however, found that since the interim order has been operating since 19.9.2008, an endeavour be made by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Latur to decide the Complaint (ULP) No.24 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. Letters patent appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid directions. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/101.09lpa 3