1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.183 OF 2009. IN WRIT PETITION NO.2862 OF 2007 (D). MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WANI THRO C.O. VS. CENTRAL INDIA TRADE UNION THROGH. SECRY. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri MI Dhatrak, Advocate for the appellant. Shri FI Kha Advocate for Respondent. Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 13th AUGUST, 2009. 1. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 28-4-2008 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2862 of 2007. 2. The Respondent - Union has filed the complaint ULP No.18 of 2007 before the Industrial Court at Yavatmal, and its tenability was challenged by the petitioner by contending that the so called Members of the respondent Union were not the employees of the 2 Municipal Council, but were the employees of the Contractor. Some contracts entered into with said Contractors were also placed on the record. That application was rejected by the Learned Member, Industrial Court after going through the documents and after noticing that the Municipal Council was contending that each employee himself was the Contractor. That order of the Industrial Court has been maintained by the learned Single Judge. 3. We have perused the application filed by the appellants before the Industrial Court for dismissal of ULPs. We find the application very vague and in para 2, it is mentioned that the contract was given to Shri Dilip Chindhania till 31-3-2005 and he ought to have been joined as a party respondent. It is to be noted that ULP Complaint is filed in the year 2007 i.e. about 2 years thereafter. In this position, we are not inclined to interfere in the Letters 3 Patent Appeal. 4. During argument, Advocate Shri Dhatrak has pointed out that the matter is prosecuted further before the Industrial Court, and the appellant has led the evidence to show the existence of the contractor and to prove that the employees were the employees of the Contractor. If that be the case, the said evidence can be pressed into by the Municipal Council to show the absence of relationship and issue can be examined in the light of the evidence, which has come on record in writ petition. 5. There is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/