1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.202 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.906 OF 2005 (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and another vs. Member, Industrial Court and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P.N. Kothari, Advocate for appellants. Shri S. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.5. --------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 2, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In this appeal, the appellants have impugned the order dated 27/3/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.906/2005 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus : “The petitioner has challenged the judgment and 2 order passed by the Industrial Court allowing the complaint filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 and directing to bring the said respondents on C.R.T. w.e.f. 22/3/1996 and consequential payment of difference of wages. Before the Industrial Court, it was not in dispute that the complainants were appointed as daily rated employees and on completion of five years, they were entitled to be brought on C.R.T. as they are governed by the Kalelkar Settlement. It was almost an admitted position before the Industrial Court that the complainants were governed by Kalelkar Settlement and hence, they were entitled to be brought on C.R.T. on completion of five years of continuous service. The Industrial Court has rightly held that as the petitioners have committed breach of the provisions of Kalelkar Award and that by itself constitutes an unfair labour practice. Hence, the learned Industrial Court allowed the complaint. Perused the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, in absence of an approval from the State Government, it is not possible for the petitioners to grant status of C.R.T. to the respondents in view of Section 19 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act. There is no question of approval in the present case in view of the fact that the Industrial Court has directed the petitioners to bring the respondents in the category of C.R.T. There is no substance in the petition. The same is dismissed and disposed of.” 3 Learned Counsel for the appellants does not dispute that the respondent employees are governed by Kalelkar Settlement. The Finance Officer of the appellants has admitted so in his evidence. Merely because approval from the State Government as contemplated by Section 19 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act is not obtained by the appellants cannot be a ground for entertaining this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the appellants have already forwarded proposal under Section 19 of the Act for approval and they are awaiting reply from the State Government. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj