-1- 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.102 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2003 The Director of Agriculture .. Appellant. Vs. Chandrakant Ramchandra Jadhav .. Respondent. Mr.N.P.Deshpande AGP for the appellant. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. PC: PC: PC: . We have heard Mr.Deshpande, the learned A.G.P. Though the Letters Patent Appeal was filed in 2002 it came to be admitted on 24.4.2007. 2. We have noted that the respondent had filed a complaint ULP No.307 of 1986 and prayed for the relief of permanency. The Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 24.12.1997 dismissed the complaint. However, it directed the present appellants to pay to the complainant, the salary as is paid to the Agricultural Labourer on permanent rolls. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.5256 of 1998 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the petition summarily on 22.12.1998. We have noted that the writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge invoked his supervisory powers and held that there is no case made -2- out to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Letters Patent Appeal would, therefore, be not maintainable. 3. Even otherwise, the Industrial Court recorded a finding that the complainants had put in more than five years of service and in every year they had completed 240 days of service. Obviously, the complainant would be entitle for the benefits of Kalekar award, namely, payment of salary and other benefits as are available to the employees on regular rolls without they being made permanent in Government service. Hence the Industrial Court was justified in directing payments of the wages as are paid to regular agricultural labourers. While dismissing the complaint filed under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1970 the learned Judge rightly rejected the writ petition by the impugned order. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Judge does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record and hence this intra court appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. 4. Civil application does not survive and hence it is disposed off as such. -3- (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)