1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.126 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.309 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1940 OF 1995 Smt.Tarabai Gulab Sawant ...Applicant/(orig. Respondent 1) vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents --- Ms.Seema Sarnaik, for applicant. Mr.Patne, AGP for State. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & R. S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 9th APRIL, 2009 P.C.:- 1. This civil application has been taken out for recall of the order dated 23.9.2008 passed in Civil application no.67 of 2003 which was taken out for condonation of delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal. It is an admitted position that 2 the applicant who has taken out this civil application was respondent no.1 in that civil application and was served with the notice. The reason that has been given for her absence. is incapable of being accepted in the absence of any proof being produced. As the order has been passed after issuing due notice to the applicant, in our opinion, no exception can be taken to the order. In any case, the order is only of condoning delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal. The fact that one of the parties to the original petition has filed Letters Patent appeal with delay and that delay was not condoned, in our opinion, is not relevant while considering the question of condonation of delay in filing appeal by the Government of Maharashtra. Civil application is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 3 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.309 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1940 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. 1.Smt.Tarabai Gulab Savant and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Patne, AGP for State-Appellant. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & R. S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 9th APRIL, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra 4 challenges only that part of the order dated 2.8.2002 passed in Writ petition no.1940 of 1995 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which a direction is issued to the State of Maharashtra to reimburse the Zilla Parishad, Nasik the amount that may be paid by the Zilla Parishad, Nasik to Respondent no.1. Brief facts which are necessary for deciding this appeal are that a complaint was filed by the present Respondent no.1 Smt.Tarabai Gulab Savant against the present Respondent no.2-the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nasik and present respondent no.3-the Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Baglan, under the Unfair Labour Practices Act. To that complaint, State of Maharashtra was not joined as party. In that complaint the following order was passed:- “The complaint is allowed. It is hereby declared that the respondents have committed unfair labour practice contemplated by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act,1971. The Respondents are further 5 directed to extend permanency benefits to the complainant of a post on which similarly placed female workers from Public Health Centre, Satana were extended the permanency benefits, with a proper wage-scale and ancillary benefits. Such benefits be extended from the date of complaint i.e. 18-12-90 to the complainant. Finally, I also find that the complaint is in time, as the grievance made is of a continuous nature. Parties to bear their own costs.” It is obvious from the above quoted order that as the State Government was not party to the complaint, there was no direction issued against the State Government. The present Respondent nos. 2 and 3 viz. Chief Executive Officer and the Block Development Officer feeling aggrieved by that order, filed Writ Petition no.1940 of 1995. To that Writ Petition, the State of Maharashtra was not joined as party. The only prayer made in the petition was for setting aside the order of 6 the Industrial Court dated 24.8.1994. The prayer clause (a) of the petition reads as under:- “(a) the Judgment and order of the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nashik dated 24.8.1994 in Complaint No.(ULP)1073 of 1990 be quashed and set aside.” Thus, it is clear that in the petition, there was no direction claimed against the State of Maharashtra. It appears that, thereafter, the State Government was joined as party. But it appears that there is no amendment carried out to the petition as also the prayer clause of the petition claiming any relief against the State Government. By following a strange procedure not known to Law, the learned Single Judge has issued directions to the State Government by his final order, to reimburse the Petitioner-Respondent no.2 herein for the amount that may be paid by the Petitioner-Respondent no.2 herein to Respondent no.1 herein. It is clear that this direction was issued to the State of Maharashtra 7 though there was no prayer in the petition praying such a direction to the State Government. Admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the State Government before issuing such directions, for showing cause as to why such directions should not be issued against the State Government. In our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.8.2002 in so far as it issues directions against the State Government-the present appellant is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly, set aside. Letters Patent appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. 3. At this stage a request is made for stay of the operation of this order order. Considering the nature of the order that we have set aside, in our opinion, no such order can be made. The request is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2003 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.309 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1940 OF 1995 9 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. 1.Smt.Tarabai Gulab Savant and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Patne, AGP for State-Applicant. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & R. S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 9th APRIL, 2009 P.C.:- In view of the order passed today i.e. 9.4.2009 in L.P.A.no.309 of 2008, this civil application does not survive for consideration. Hence, the civil application is disposed of. 10 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)