1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 537/2010 in Writ Petition No. 2067/2005 (D) The Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Circle, Nagpur & ors. ..vs.. The Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Desai, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Khubalkar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Ms Pathak, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & P. D. KODE, JJ DATED : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2010 1. The appellants have questioned the judgment of the learned Single Judge, refusing to interfere with the order of the Industrial Court, granting regularisation to respondents. 2. The respondents approached the Industrial Court under the M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act for a prayer to regularise his services as clerk with effect from 02.04.1987 and for difference in wages. By judgment in appeal, the learned Single Judge rejected both the contentions against the order of the Industrial court namely; the contention regarding limitation and the contention regarding the merit of the matter. In appeal, the learned counsel for the 2 appellants contended that the respondents do not have requisite qualification for being recruited as clerk. We see that this contention was not raised before the learned Single Judge and even otherwise has no merit since it is found by the learned Single Judge that the respondent's case squarely falls within the preview of clause 28 of the Kalelkar Settlement since he is found to have been working as Clerk continuously for a period of five years before 09.04.1992. It is the basic qualification for regularisation as per the Kalelkar Settlement which is also not seriously disputed. 3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE kahale