lpa51.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.51 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.131 OF 2006. Jalgaon Jilha S.T. Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Jalgaon and ors. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS Suryakant Baburao Patil and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri V.A. Pawar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V.Y. Patil, Advocate for R.Nos.1 to 11. ... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18th April, 2011. PER COURT: 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Industrial Court by which it had confirmed the action taken by the Bank of dismissing the services of the concerned lpa51.11 2 employees. According to the appellants, the concerned employees had been appointed by the erstwhile managing committee without caring to ascertain the qualifications of the petitioners or their respective age. The appellants contend that the erstwhile managing committee had appointed these persons only because they were related to the office bearers of the managing committee. 2. The Labour Court allowed the complaint filed by the workmen and set aside their order of termination. The Industrial Court did not accept the findings of the Labour Court and dismissed the complaint. This order has been reversed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that action has been taken against the concerned workmen on the basis of show cause notice issued to them. He submits that once a show cause notice in respect of the irregularities mentioned regarding their lpa51.11 3 appointment in service, there is no need to hold an enquiry. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in case of Ujwala wd/o Uday Pimple vs. Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and another (2011(1) Mh.L.J.292). 4. After perusal of that judgment, we find that it is not applicable to the present case. The employees concerned in the present case were appointed and had been working for ten years with the appellants. The learned Single Judge has found that there were some irregularities regarding their appointment and had directed the reinstatement without back-wages. This would not preclude the appellants from taking an action, in accordance with the law, against the concerned employees. Appeal dismissed. Civil Application disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J] ... Kadam/*