1 LPA 1420/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (S) NO. 1420 OF 2010 Ketkar Nagar Bhavan & N.M. Ranade Mofat Vachanalaya .. Appellant V/s Mrs. Nilam Chandrakant Shelukar .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Pakale i/b Mr. Kirankumar Phakade for the applicant. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. There is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay as also on merits. 2. The appeal is directed against the order of the Industrial Court granting reinstatement in service without back wages to the respondent. The services of the respondent were 2 LPA 1420/10 terminated. She filed a complaint under the M.R.T.P. & PULP Act. That complaint was decided by an order dated 23rd November 2007. The Labour Court held that the present appellant is guilty of unfair labour practices, but instead of granting reinstatement granted only compensation to the respondent. This order was accepted by the appellant. Revision was however filed by the respondent. As the finding of the Labour Court that the appellant is guilty of unfair labour practice was not challenged, it was confirmed by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, however, held that there was no justification for denying reinstatement in service to the respondent. It therefore made an order of reinstatement in service to the respondent but without any back wages. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition. 3. We find that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition because the finding that the appellant is guilty of having committed unfair labour practices was not challenged and, therefore, the question was only what relief is to be granted. In our opinion, the Industrial Court was justified in granting the reinstatement without any back wages and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by 3 LPA 1420/10 condoning the delay. The Civil Application and the L.P.A. are rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.)