rng IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2008 inin in LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. OF 2008 PATENT APPEAL NO. OF 2008 PATENT APPEAL NO. OF 2008 inin in CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2008 inin in WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2007 Punjab State Container and Warehousing Corporation .. Applicant Vs. 1.Shri P.T.Manjrekar .. Respondents & anr Mr.K.S.Bapat i.b Desai & Desai Associates for Applicant Mr.R.S.Pai with Ms Soumiya Shrikrishna i/b M/s Tijoriwala & Co for Respondent no.2 Respondent no.1 present in person CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : J.N.PATEL and J.N.PATEL and J.N.PATEL and K.K.TATED, K.K.TATED, K.K.TATED, JJ JJ JJ DATE DATE DATE : 30th January, 2009 : 30th January, 2009 : 30th January, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By consent, delay is condoned. 3. The appeal is taken up for hearing at the stage of admission. We find that the impugned order dated 8th September, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge merely permits the respondents to make a fresh application under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act as the earlier application came to be rejected on the ground that the applications not in confirmity with the judgment of the Division Bench in U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd vs Maharashtra GeneralKamgar Union in 2008 (2) Bom C.R. 619). 2 4. The only exception made in the appeal and this is taken as the sole ground that the learned Single Judge has observed that as there is no clause of transfer in the service conditions of the appointment order issued to the respondent-applicant, the applicant would have been entitled to wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. In view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has not decided the application on merits and rejected it on technical ground, there is no pronouncement of judgment or order passed by the learned Single Judge which is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. The apprehension of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that this may influence the learned Single Judge while deciding the fresh application filed by the respondents. In our opinion, the impression is misplaced but still in order to assure the parties, we dispose of this appeal with a request to the learned Single Judge not to be influenced by any observations made in the impugned order and particularly in para 5 of the impugned order while deciding the application of the respondents under section 17B of the Act. 3 Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. { K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J } { J.N.Patel, J } J.N.Patel, J } J.N.Patel, J }