ssp 1 LPA 48 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.48 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9320 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.66 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.48 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9320 OF 2010 Solapur Municipal Corporation and Anr. .....Appellants versus Shivprasad Ramji Gaikwad ..... Respondent Mr.Vineet B. Naik with Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh, for the appellants. Mr.Mohan Pungliya i/by Mr.A.M.Pungliya, for the respondent. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 26 th JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.9320 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant­Corporation and confirmed the order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.171 of 1987. The respondent herein was serving on temporary basis with the appellant­Corporation. Since the ssp 2 LPA 48 of 2011 status of permanency was denied to him for a long period, the respondent herein preferred a complaint being ULP No.171 of 1987 under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act regarding unfair trade practice. The Industrial Court allowed the said complaint and gave directions to the Corporation to accord permanent status to the respondent herein. The said order of the Industrial Court was challenged by the appellant­ Corporation by way of Writ Petition No.4673 of 1994. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 02­12­1994 disposed of the writ petition maintaining the order passed by the Industrial Court. The said order was challenged by the appellant by way of Letters Patent Appeal. It seems that the Corporation has evolved a scheme for regularizing the employment of various employees. The appeal filed by the present appellant was disposed of by recording the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant­ Corporation that the respondent has been regularized and that even otherwise, the scheme which was referred to in the order of this Court dated 13­12­1995 was implemented. In view of the same, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal as having become infructous. 2. Subsequently, the respondent workman preferred an application before the Industrial Court by way of complaint ULP No.7 of 2007, as earlier order passed by the Industrial Court was not complied with, regarding payment of back wages. The Industrial Court allowed ssp 3 LPA 48 of 2011 the said complaint directing the appellant to comply with the said order regarding back wages. The appellant challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.9320 of 2010 and the learned Single Judge found that since respondent was not regularized as per the scheme framed by the Corporation and since he was given status of permanency in view of earlier order passed in the original complaint, the appellant was required to comply with the directions given in the earlier proceedings undertaken by the respondent herein. The learned Single Judge on the aforesaid premises, dismissed the writ petition, against which the present appeal is filed. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the respondent was not given benefit under the scheme as his services were regularized by an order dated 31­12­1998. As against this, benefit of scheme was made available to the employees from the year 2001 as the first list was prepared in June 2001. 4. If that be so, naturally respondent could not have been regularized in the year 1998. It is therefore, not in dispute that the services of the respondent were regularized de hors the scheme and prior to the said scheme came into existence i.e in the year 1998 and the said benefit was given in view of the order passed by the Court in earlier complaint filed by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the order given ssp 4 LPA 48 of 2011 in favour of the respondent in the earlier proceedings was not set aside by this Court in Writ Petition, as writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. The appeal was also disposed of as having become infructous, though, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a statement was made before the earlier Division Bench under mistaken facts. However, the fact remains that the earlier order passed in the first proceedings attained finality and on the basis of the same, fresh complaint is filed by the respondent for the purpose of execution of the said Award, as no benefit of back wages is given to the respondent. Since earlier order has became final, as indicated above, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Industrial Court in the present complaint and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant­Corporation. It was open to the appellant to file review petition before the earlier Division Bench while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellant, as the appeal was not decided on merits i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No.142 of 1995, especially when it is not in dispute that the respondent was not given benefit under the scheme, but de hors the scheme he was given benefit of permanency on the basis of the order of the Industrial Court. Considering the said aspect, we do not find any substance in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ssp 5 LPA 48 of 2011 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application No. 66 of 2011 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )