1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.423/2009 In Writ Petition No.251/1996 (D) [Municipal Council, Deoli, Wardha through Chief Officer .vrs. Industrial Court, Nagpur and others] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for appellant, Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, AGP for respondent no.1. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : APRIL 05, 2010. Heard. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant – Municipal Council, has challenged order of learned Single Judge allowing the petitions of the respondents. The original complainant, now represented by legal representatives, had approached the Industrial Court for regularisation of their services under Section 28 read with item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The original complainant had prayed for regularisation on the ground that she had served for more than 240 days continuously with the Municipal Council and, therefore, she claimed permanency in service with effect from 16.12.1976. The 2 Industrial Court had allowed the complaint in part and directed that respondent be taken on regular establishment by giving her regular time scale with effect from 14.3.1991. The learned Single Judge has found that it is not proper to entertain the petition filed by the appellant since the appellant though served had not filed written statement to controvert the respondent’s case before the trial Court. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that in view of absence of written statement, the Industrial Court rightly allowed the claim of respondent particularly by granting relief with effect from 14.3.1991 and rejecting the claim for permanency benefits with effect from 16.12.1976 as the respondent had not made a grievance in that regard for a period of more than fifteen years. It is clear that the Industrial Court had taken a balance view of respondent’s case even though the appellant had not filed any written statement. In our view, there is no reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge refusing to interfere in Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Hence, the LPA is dismissed. CAZ No.72/2010 In view of dismissal of LPA, this application does not survive. Hence, the application is disposed of as not surviving. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande