1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.17 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5461 OF 1997 Union of India and Anr. .. Appellants Vs. David P. Tribhuvan & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellants Mr.P.J.Thorat for respondent no.1 CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : January 15, 2010 P.C. : 1. The appellants challenge the order dt.25.03.09 by which the learned single Judge of this court has upheld the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, save to the extent that it directs reinstatement with effect from the year 1978. The learned single Judge has modified the award to the effect that the respondent shall stand reinstated with continuity of service and back wages with effect from 11.12.1980 instead of 18.07.1978. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the judgments of the apex court in the cases of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others vs. 2 State of Bihar and Others reported in (1997) 4 SCCC 391 and Madhyamit Shiksha Parishad, U.P vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 122, the question as to whether the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the present appellant or not is pending before the Apex Court. 3. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal so also the learned single Judge, it can be seen that the main issue that was raised before the learned Industrial Tribunal was non compliance with the statutory provisions under rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which require the employer to prepare the list of all workman from the category from which retrenchment is contemplated. It is further seen that the said procedure requires the said list to be displayed on the notice board along with the details of all the vacancies. It can further be seen that intimation of all the vacancies is required to be given by respondents to everyone before filing up the vacancies. 4. In the present case, admittedly the said provisions which are mandatory in nature have not been complied with. In so far reliance placed on the judgment of the the apex court in the case of Madhyamit Shiksha Parishad, U.P. vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and Others (supra) is concerned, in those cases the issue is related to regularisation and not retrenchment of the workmen. We, therefore, find that the said judgments are not of any assistance to the case of the appellants. 3 5. Hence, we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Letters Patent Appeal is therefore, dismissed. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J)