1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.174 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.968 OF 2006 Raosaheb s/o Baburao Bhakare, R/o. C/o- Trade Union Centre, Bashir Ganj, Beed, At Post, Tq. & Dist-beed. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) Zilla Parishad, Beed, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.Pradeep Shahane Advocate for Appellant. Shri.U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri. Shahane, learned counsel submitted 2 that the Writ Petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in the light of the facts that the Petitioner had invoked writ jurisdiction of learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable though the learned Single Judge observed that no case was made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On merits, the counsel submits that the Appellant had made out a case that he had worked for more than 240 days and for want of compliance of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court, Aurangabad erred in rejecting the Reference by Judgment and Order dated 30th November, 2000. 3. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on the following Judgments: 1) The Workmen of American Express International Banking 3 Corporation vs. The Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, 1985 II C.L.R. Page 269, 2) Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubai Meghajibhai Chavda, 2010, A.I.R. S.C.W. Page 542, 3) Judgment of the Apex Court dated 5th January, 2010 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6966 of 2009 in the case of Harjinder Sing vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 4) Judgment of the Apex Court dated 12th March, 2010 in Civil Appeal No.2335 of 2010 in the case of Krishan Singh vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. 4. Shri. Bondar, learned counsel for 4 Respondent submitted that even if the Petition was filed referring to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts of the case the learned Single Judge exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the counsel submits that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. On merits, the counsel submits that the Appellant failed to establish that he worked for more than 240 days. The counsel placed reliance on the observations made by the Labour Court in this regard. 5. We have perused the Judgments cited supra. We find that the learned Single Judge observed that the Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The powers are exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Petition. On merits, we perused the observations of the Labour Court that the Appellant failed to establish that he worked for more than 240 days. The Appellant had pleaded that 5 from 21st May, 1986 to 21st August, 1987, he had worked for 198 days. In the view of the Labour Court, the Appellant could not establish that junior to the Appellant were retained in service. 6. Considering the scope of the present Appeal and in the facts of the case, we do not find any error in the view adopted by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/lpa174.07