IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2008 M/s.Hindustan Fastners Pvt.Ltd. ...Appellant (Orig.Petitioner) V/s. Nashik Workers Union & Ors. ...Respondents (Orig.Respondents) Shri S.S. Pakale for the Appellant. Ms.P.S. Cardosa, Government Pleader for the State. Shri Bhavesh Parmer for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 9, 2008 DATED : JUNE 9, 2008 DATED : JUNE 9, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge issuing Rule and declining interim relief. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the present appeal has stated that this appeal is not maintainable as much as the original order was passed on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This contention is disputed on behalf of the appellant. He contends that the petition was filed - 2 - under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the judgment and order dated 9th January, 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, in a complaint No.ULP 222/2000. 3. A bare reading of the petition reveals that the petition was filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As no reasons in this regard have been stated in the impugned order, we are unable to decide the controversy. In fact, the learned Counsel for the respondent states that they were not served in the writ petition and the order dated 18th January, 2008 has been passed without serving the respondents and as such, he had no opportunity to raise this objection before the learned Single Judge as to whether the petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 would or would not be maintainable. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order dated 18th January, 2008. In Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Pipe Arts India Pvt.Ltd., Sanaswadi, Pipe Arts India Pvt.Ltd., Sanaswadi, Pipe Arts India Pvt.Ltd., Sanaswadi, - 3 - Taluka Shirur V/s. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare, Pune, Taluka Shirur V/s. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare, Pune, Taluka Shirur V/s. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare, Pune, reported in 2008 Vol.II CLR 228 reported in 2008 Vol.II CLR 228 reported in 2008 Vol.II CLR 228 where in similar circumstances and facts we think it quite similar to the order impugned in the present writ petition, wherein the Order was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh determination, in accordance with law. 5. Following the reasoning given by the Division Bench in the case of Gangadhar (supra) Gangadhar (supra) Gangadhar (supra) which we find similar to present one, we set aside the order dated 18th January, 2008 and remanded the matter for determination afresh, in accordance with law, before the learned Single Judge. We make it clear that the parties are free to take such objections as are maintainable and as are available to in law. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE - 4 - V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.