.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.380 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2619 OF 2008 Maharashtra Employees Union. ..Appellants. Versus M/s. Santosh Industries and 2 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Ashok D. Shetty & Ms.Rita K. Joshi, Advocates for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Bapat, Advocate i/b. Shri T.R.Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. The only issue raised before us and argued before us in this Appeal was that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent Union have not closed and the closure was just a reason to retrench the appellants. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not .{2}. been able to show from the record any material to support this contention. 4. The Labour Court committed an error in allowing the complaint by holding that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice under Item Nos.1(a), (b) & (f) of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 which was upheld by the Industrial Court. The said orders are challenged before the learned Single Judge, who on examining the record found that no case under Section 47 of MRTU & PULP Act has been made out by the appellants and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court and upheld by the Industrial Court cannot be sustained. We do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error or illegality in dismissing the complaint by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. The learned Single Judge on the other hand directed the employer to pay the dues of the workmen though it was a case of the respondent that the dues were offered to the workmen, but, they refused and accept the retrenchment and, therefore, no fault can be found with the respondent employer. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that .{3}. as directed by the learned Single Judge they are again tendered the amount due and payable to the workmen by sending it to the appellant Union along with Pay-Order of the Bank, but, he has no instructions whether the same has been encashed or not. If the union refuses to accept the amount, the same can be deposited in the Labour Court within a period of two weeks from the date the bankers of the employers informed them that the pay-order has not been encashed or the appellant union, whichever is earlier. Letters Patent Appeal stands summarily dismissed. [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]