[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.72 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3025 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.409 AND 410 OF 2007 M/s.Steelite Engineering Ltd. ..Appellant Vs. Shri.Nitinkumar A.Thakkar ..Respondent .... Mr.Madhav Jamdar Adv. for Appellant Mr.S.C.Naidu for Respondent .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009 DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009 DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Letters Patent Appeal impugns the order dated 7.6.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 3025 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.474 of 2001 by which the [-2-] Respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages and continuity of service. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Employer that the Respondent was not a workman and therefore, a reference could not be made to the Labour Court in the matter of his termination; Secondly, it is contended that the Labour Court at Mumbai had no jurisdiction as the Respondent was employed in the Factory at Thane; Thirdly, there is nothing on record to show that the Respondent was unemployed and entitled for backwages. 4. We find that the Labour Court has taken up all these issues into consideration and given findings against the Appellant on the point as to whether the Respondent is a workman or not. The Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the Appellant-employer has failed to place on record any direct evidence in form of documents or otherwise nor led evidence to show what was the nature of duties performed by the Respondent and that merely because Respondent has signed certain documents in the capacity as a Manager, could not [-3-] make him a Manager. The learned Single Judge was right in upholding the findings. Jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge while assailing the order passed by the learned Labour Judge is not that of Appellate Court and it has rightly come to the conclusion that the findings arrived at by Labour Court is plausible and borne out from the evidence on record. 5. In respect of the issue of jurisdiction, it was not raised before the Labour Court. Further the Appellant-employer has a registered office in Mumbai, belies the claim of the Appellant that the Labour Court at Mumbai had no jurisdiction in the matter. We find that there is no error or illegality committed by the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of the fact this Court has dismissed the appeal, all interim applications are disposed of as infructuous. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]