1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.233 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5088 OF 1996 WITH CIVIL APPLICTION NO. 3207 OF 2010 Laxman S/o Khanduji Dane Age 41 years,Occup. Service, R/0Jambhala, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. And others. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellants. Smt.Ranjana Reddy, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER,2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Letters Patent Appeal is filed against 2 denial of back wages to the appellants, under the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram : P.R.BORKAR, J.), dated 12.10.2009, in Writ Petition No. 5088 of 1996. 3. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of his submissions placed reliance on the Judgment in the matter of Taranjitsingh I. Bagga Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Controller, reported in 2008(4) Bom. C.R.330. The learned counsel submits that as the learned Single Judge held that the respondent has indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 6 Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, in the facts of the case the order of back wages ought to have been passed. 4. Smt. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, in support of her submissions, placed reliance on the Judgments in the matter of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Udai Narain Pandey, reported in 2006 (7) SCC 3 752 and Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs. Shamim Mirza reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 20. 5. The learned counsel submits that though the appellants are now working with corporation consequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, but the appellants have failed to establish that they were not gainfully employed during the intervening period. 6. We have perused the Judgment and orders passed by the Industrial Court, learned Single Judge and the Judgments cited before us. 8. Considering the facts of the case and evidence led by the parties, we do not find any patent illegality or perversity in the view adopted the learned single Judge, denying the back wages to the appellants. The appellants failed to establish that they were not gainfully employed during the said period. Even otherwise, in the 4 facts of the case the appellants have failed to establish that this is a fit case wherein back wages are to be granted. In this view of the matter, we do not find that the appellants have made out a case warranting interference in the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 9. In the light of the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK