[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.42 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2990 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2005 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.42 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2990 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. The Registrar, Shivaji University Kolhapur and ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. S.K.Chinchlikar AGP for Appellant Mr. R.G.Ketkar for Respondent No.1 Mr. P.P.Chavan i/b V.M.Bhate for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 27, 2009 DATE : FEBRUARY 27, 2009 DATE : FEBRUARY 27, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The original Petitioner Gajanan Shinde and one Dilip Dattatray Nilkanth were class IV employees holding the post of Pump Operator with Respondent No.1-University. Both of them filed complaint of unfair labour practice falling under Chapter IV [-2-] Item Nos.6 and 9 and they prayed that directions be issued to respondents to confer the status and privileges of permanency on them. The Industrial Court by order dated 20.12.1994 partly allowed the said complaints and directed to confer the status of permanency and further grant of privileges thereof to both of them since creation of permanent post of Pump Operator. 3. As stated earlier, another employee Dilip Nilkanth who is similarly situated as the original petitioner as Pump Operator had filed complaint before the Industrial Court on the very same ground. The complaints of Dilip Nilkanth and Gajanan Shinde were disposed of by the Industrial Court by order dated 20.12.1994. Both these orders of the Industrial Court were challenged before the learned Single judge by filing Writ Petition Nos. 2990 and 2992 of 1995. Both these writ petitions came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 10.1.2003, as there were common questions of law and facts. The learned Single Judge held that the impugned order of the Industrial Court does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record, hence, [-3-] petitions came to be summarily dismissed. 4. The State has challenged the said decision of the learned Single Judge by filing LPA No.43 of 2008 and the present LPA. LPA No.43 of 2008 concerns Dilip Nilkanth and the present LPA concerns Gajanan Shinde. The LPA No.43 of 2008 came up before the Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 16.4.2008, the Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal. We have already noted above that the facts and the points of law in both the matters i.e. relating to Gajanan Shinde and Dilip Nilkanth are the same, hence, we see no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Division Bench in L.P.A.No. 43 of 2008. Therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]