1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 264/2008 in CA No. 2748/2008 in W. P. No. 774/2006 (Pending) Municipal Council, Wardha ..vs.. Raju Ragdeoji Dhale ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Abhay Sambrae, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S. A. Kalbande, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS,JJ. DATED : 27 th APRIL, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Single Judge has held that the Management i.e. the appellant has not established how the respondent is gainfully employed and has rested content by making such a statement. 3. Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. ..vs.. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union; 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 297, particularly paragraph no. 19. However, the ratio of this decision does not help the appellant since, the Division Bench, in that case, came to the conclusion 2 that the Management had taken vague stand and had failed to discharge the burden placed on it. This clearly implies that the Management must fully discharge the burden of proving that the employee, whose services are terminated, is fully employed. 4. In the present case, we agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge that the appellant has failed to prove the manner in which the respondent was gainfully employed. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE kahale