1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 2011 in W. P. No. 1868 of 2006 Purushottam Bhagwan Ragit and another ..VERSIS.. Municipal Council, Rajura WITH Letters Patent Appeal No. 126 of 2011 in W. P. No. 3590 of 2006 Ramdas Govinda Umre ..VERSIS.. Municipal Council, Rajura and others WITH Civil Application (CAZ) No. 199 of 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal St. No. 19541/2010 in W.P. No. 2390 1997 Ku. Vibhavari D/o Vitthal Saraf and others ..VERSIS.. Municipal Council, Rajura and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the appellant in LPA No.44/11 Mr. N. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants in LPA Nos.126/11 and CAZ No.199/11 Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1-M.C.,Rajura Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the respondent -State. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 28th JULY, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since, common issues arise for determination in these Letters Patent Appeals and they arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The judgments passed by the Labour Court, Chandrapur and the Industrial Court, Nagpur were 2 rightly modified by the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 30.07.2010 in a bunch of writ petitions as it was found by the learned Single Judge that there was compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was clear from the evidence on record that the appellants were not appointed on regular posts by following the due procedure prescribed by law. It was more or less a back door entry on the part of the appellants to meet exigency of the work in the Municipal Council. It was observed by the learned Single Judge on a proper appreciation of the material on record that the appellants were employed on temporary basis for the period stated in the appointment orders, which was for a limited period and the services of the appellants were also not continuous. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court and directing that the respondent-Municipal Council should consider whether it was possible to absorb the employees pursuant to the Resolution of the Municipal Council dated 18.01.2007 or as per the Government policy. The learned Single Judge observed that the Government was also expected to take decision on the proposal of absorption within a period of three months. 3 We feel that the judgment dated 30.7.2010 is just and proper and cannot be effectively challenged in these Letters Patent Appeals. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale