1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (ST) NO. 18966 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1336 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 705 OF 2006 (DECIDED) (State of Maharashtra and others .v. Vimal Hiraman Khandare and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri D.P. Thakre, AGP for the applicants/appellants. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 20TH JANUARY, 2010. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 56 days caused in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. While considering the application for condonation of delay, this Court found that it is necessary to consider the merit of appeal, before the respondents are called in the application for condonation of delay to appear and defend it. This is considered necessary in view of the fact that if it is found that the appeal itself is meritless, the respondents should not be and need not be unnecessarily vexed. 3. We have, therefore, heard the learned AGP Shri D.P. Thakre and perused the record annexed to the LPA and to the writ petition. 4. In the appeal, the appellants had challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CAW No. 1336 of 2009. Thereby learned Single Judge had reviewed the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 705 of 2006 whereby the writ petition which was initially dismissed, has been allowed, and a direction is given to the applicants herein to give employment to the complainants. 2 5. The complainants' claim before the Industrial Court was under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act. 6. It is not in dispute that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge relating to availability of vacancies is based on the record called from the respondent employer – present appellant. The Industrial Court as well had held that there exist four vacancies of the cook and one of helper. 7. It was urged by appellants, before learned Single Judge that the post of maid servant does not exist, as the complainants were workmen appointed on daily wages, the complainants were not entitled to be absorbed on any post. 8. Learned Judge found that the failure of the employer in giving employment to the complainants is in violation of the statutory obligation under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which amounts amounts to unfair labour practice. Therefore, learned Single Judge has recalled the order dismissing the writ petition. 9. The ground of challenge urged in present Letters Patent Appeal, is that the daily rated workers are not entitled for regularization in absence of the availability of regular vacancy in a sanctioned post. 10. The proposition which is urged in appeal is not debatable question is whether it is involved in present case. 11. It is pertinent to note that learned single Judge of this Court did not grant permanency and in said background proposition urged in appeal is not involved in present case. 12. The workmen may agitate the demand of permanency independently and depending the availability of employment and other grounds as may be available in law. Any such claim when raised would be decided according to law on its own merit. 13. Thus it is exfacie borne out that the appeal has no merit as 3 the relief granted is one which falls in Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 14. In this situation, issuing the notice on the application for condonation of delay would not advance cause of justice, as the appeal itself is seen to be meritless and the workmen would who are already jobless be vexed. 15. In this background, we are satisfied that there is no case for issuing notice in the application for condonation of delay. 16. Hence, we dismiss the application for the condonation of delay. The appeal shall follow the suit. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.