1 wp-5662-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 5662 OF 2009 Shri.Ramesh Gulabrao Dhurve ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Vijay Gharat Adv. for Petitioner Mr.J.P.Cama Senior Counsel with Ms.N.Mehta i/b M/s.Haresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : 29th JULY , 2009 P.C.: 1. Petitioner was in the employment of the respondent no.2 company. He was initially working as Typewriter Service Mechanic at Parel. He came to be transferred to the production line assembling work at Vikhroli. According to the petitioner, nature of his job had changed, hence, he filed Complaint (ULP) No.140 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Thane. The said complaint came to be dismissed by the Labour Court by judgment and order dated 12th January, 2001. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Revision i.e. Revision 2 wp-5662-09 Application (ULP) No.32 of 2001 before the Industrial Court, Thane which came to be dismissed by order dated 21st September, 2002. Thereafter, admittedly, the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 270 of 2003 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 29th April, 2008 held that there was no merit in the petition and the petition came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.362 of 2008. In the said L.P.A., on 9th April, 2009, the Division Bench passed the following order: “On the request of learned counsel for the appellant Letters Patent Appeal allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy. ” 2. Thereafter, the present petition has been preferred. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the same prayers i.e. the judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 12th January, 2001 and the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 21st September, 2002 be set aside, hence, the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29th April, 2008 be dispensed with and the directions be issued to respondent no.2 to take certain steps. 3. It is seen that the petitioner has already preferred a writ petition before this Court in respect of the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The said writ petition has been dismissed. No doubt, the 3 wp-5662-09 petitioner had preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the said order but the appropriate remedy which is stated in the order dated 9th April, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, would not be the present petition. No such prayers as sought by the petitioner, can be granted in this petition by this Court. Petition is misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]