1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C. A. Z. NO. 595 OF 2011 IN L. P. A. ST. NO. 9161 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION No. 580 OF 2007 Director of Cericulture Maharashtra State & Another vs. Subhadra Narayan Umate _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri Ahirkar AGP for applicants. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P. D KODE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2011. Heard. Prayer is to condone the delay of 85 days in filing L. P. A.. Challenge is to judgment delivered by learned Single Judge on 11.01.2011 dismissing Writ Petition no. 580 of 2007. Learned Single Judge has maintained finding of Industrial Court about completion of 240 days of continuous service and about availability of two vacant posts. Therefore, provisions of Clause 4(c) of the Model 2 Standing Order are directed to be impleaded and a finding of unfair labour practice under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act has been recorded. Learned counsel has urged that said finding is perverse. Perusal of para 19 of the judgment of Industrial Court shows that finding is based upon admission given by witness examined by present appellant. Not only this it also appears that present respondent has entered service on 15.09.1993 and was terminated on 15.06.1997. In Reference I. D. No. 144 of 1998 First Labour Court passed award on 09.11.2000 and ordered her reinstatement with 40% back wages. The termination on 15.06.1997 was found in breach of Section 25(f) of Industrial Disputes Act. This finding recorded by Labour Court in I. D. no. 144 of 1998 are not shown to be either erroneous or perverse and has not been challenged. Hence even on merits we do not see any case. More over before learned Single Judge Industrial Court was not joined as party. Hence in the light of judgment of 3 Hon’ble Apex Court in 1968 Maharashtra Law Journal (NOC) 1 Mohd. Emanuel Haq Vs. Mohd. Mussala and Full Bench judgment reported in Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari through L. Rs. Smt. Lilabai Ramchandra Rangari and Others Vs. Vishwanath Champat Naik and Another 2011(5) Maharashtra Law Journal 193 it is apparent that present L. P. A. as filed is misconceived. Hence C. A. Z. No. 595 of 2011 is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE svk