1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR (1) Letters Patent Appeal No. 208 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 414 of 2010 (D) 1] Narayan Dixit Rice Mill, Singhori, Through its Manager (Partners) Shri Vijaykumar Narayan Dixit, R/o Singori, now R/o Sitabuldi, Nagpur. 2] Chandrakant S/o Narayan Dixit, Partner, Narayan Dixit Rice Mill, Aged about 71 years, Occu. Farmer, R/o Singori, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara. ....APPELLANTS. ...VERSUS... Gangaram Bhojiram Dhande, Aged about years, Occu. : Labour, R/o Singori, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara. .....RESPONDENT. WITH (2) Letters Patent Appeal No. 214 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 415 of 2010 (D) 1] Narayan Dixit Rice Mill, Singhori, Through its Manager (Partners) Shri Vijaykumar Narayan Dixit, R/o Singori, now R/o Sitabuldi, Nagpur. 2] Chandrakant S/o Narayan Dixit, Partner, Narayan Dixit Rice Mill, Aged about 71 years, Occu. Farmer, R/o Singori, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara. ....APPELLANTS. ...VERSUS... Waman Kashiram Rangari, Aged about years, Occu. Labour R/o Singori, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara. .....RESPONDENT. WITH 2 (3) Letters Patent Appeal No. 220 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 416 of 2010 (D) 1] Narayan Dixit Rice Mill, Singhori, Through its Manager (Partners) Shri Vijaykumar Narayan Dixit, R/o Singori, now R/o Sitabuldi, Nagpur. 2] Chandrakant S/o Narayan Dixit, Partner, Narayan Dixit Rice Mill, Aged about 71 years, Occu. Farmer, R/o Singori, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara. ....APPELLANTS ...VERSUS... Shriram S/o Kothiram Dolas, Aged about years, Occu. Labour R/o Singori, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara. .....RESPONDENT =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. V.P.Marpakwar, Advocate for appellants. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 3rd August, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2] These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common order dated 29.1.2010 passed in three writ petitions, being Writ Petition Nos. 414/2010, 415/2010 and 416/2010, whereby all the three writ petitions have been dismissed. 3 3] The writ petitions were directed against the orders passed by the Labour Court, Gondia so also the Industrial Court, Gondia, whereby it was found that the respondent/ employee in all the three writ petitions were in service for about 20 years and that the allegation of abandonment of service was not established. 4] The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the defence propounded by the appellant/employer was not supported by any evidence. The sole contention urged by Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the appellants was that the respondents in all the three appeals were not in the employment of the appellants and in view thereof, the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be rejected out right. The courts below, after having considered the entire material on record, have found that the appellants/ employer had issued notices to the respondents to report back on duties. This itself is sufficient to hold that they were in the employment of the appellants. That apart, this contention was not urged before the learned Single Judge, when he heard the writ petition for admission. The learned Single Judge having considered that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and that there is sufficient material on record to substantiate those findings, has rightly refused to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below. 4 5] We find no ground worth interfering in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeals accordingly fail and dismissed as such. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale