1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.260/2009 In Writ Petition No.1363/2009 (Decided) [The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur .vrs. Abdul Khalid Abdul Gaffar] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 06, 2009. Heard Mr. V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant. By this letters patent appeal the appellant takes exception to order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.1363/2009 filed by the appellant. Mr. Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the amount awarded by the Labour Court to the respondent is not the correct amount and the calculations done while passing the impugned order by the Labour Court is not correct. He further submitted that Clause 49 of the statement is also not 2 attracted and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the order passed by the learned Single Judge discloses that order passed by the Industrial Court had attained finality as SLP filed in the appellant was dismissed. Insofar as the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount has been correctly awarded by the Labour Court, the said argument does not appear to have been made before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider this argument advanced in the appeal. We find that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the petition cannot be faulted. The appellant has not made out a case for interference. Hence, the LPA is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande