1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.347 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.695 OF 2008 WITH APPEAL NO.348 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.841 OF 2008 Airports Authority of India ...Appellants v/s Mumbai International Authority Pvt.Ltd. And others ...Respondents Mr S.G. Aney, Sr. Counsel with Mr Girish Kulkarni, Mr Mayur Shetty and Ms Pooja Thorat i/b M/s M.V. Kini and Co. for Appellants. Mr Rafiq Dada, Sr. Counsel with Mr Bhaven Manek i/b M/s Wadia Gandhy and Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr Anand Grover with Ms J. Cox for Respondent No.2. 2 WITH APPEAL NO.435 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.695 OF 2008 Indian Airport Employees Union ...Appellants v/s Mumbai International Airport Pvt.Ltd. And others ...Respondents Mr Anand Grover with Ms Jeno Cox for Appellants. Mr Rafiq Dada, Sr.Counsel with Mr Bhaven Manek i/b M/s Wadia Gandhy and Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr S.G. Aney, Sr. Counsel with Mr Girish Kulkarni, Mr Mayur Shetty and Ms Pooja Thorat i/b M/s M.V. Kini and Co. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. DATE : 15TH JUNE 2009. P.C. :- 1. Two appeals i.e. appeal No.347 of 2008 and appeal No.348 of 2008 are filed by the same party. 3 Appeal No.435 of 2008 is filed by the Union of employees. The question involved in all the appeals is the same. Therefore, all the appeals can be conveniently disposed off by common order. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. In our opinion, the view taken by the leaned Single Judge in his order, which is impugned in these appeals, is perfectly in accordance with law, no exception can be taken. Because of the statement made on behalf of the Company, which is referred to by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 22 of his order, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has taken care to protect the interest of all sides. No interference in the order is called for. It was submitted on behalf of the Union that it may be said that in the facts of this case, the order of the learned Single Judge is justified but facts of other cases which are pending before the Courts below are different and therefore, the principle on which the impugned order is based will not be applicable and the Company 4 will have to be joined as a party in those cases. In our opinion, if the facts are different and the principle on the basis of which the order impugned in these appeals has been made is not applicable, it goes without saying that it is open to the appellants to raise that contention before the appropriate Court where the matters are pending. We do not propose to express any final opinion on that aspects of the matter. All the appeals are disposed off. Notices of motion Nos.3088 of 2008, 3077 of 2008 and 3298 of 2008 are disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.S. MOHITE )