1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 361 of 2010 IN W.P. 2230 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Gajanan s/o Ramrao Deshmukh & ors.) WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 370 of 2010 IN W.P. 2233 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Pravinkumar s/o Purushottam Mishra & ors.) WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 371 of 2010 IN W.P. 2229 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Pralhad s/o Kashiram Hange & ors.) and LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 372 of 2010 IN W.P. 2228 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Dilip Ramchandra Chavan & ors.) and LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 373 of 2010 IN W.P. 2231 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Dipak s/o Sahebrao Jagtap & ors.) and LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 374 of 2010 IN W.P. 2232 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Umesh s/o Punjahari Khatal & ors.) and LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 375 of 2010 IN W.P. 2234 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Ajay s/o Mohanlal Kadam & ors.) and LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 376 of 2010 IN W.P. 2226 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Sudhakar s/o Sadashiv Patil & ors.) and LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 377 of 2010 IN W.P. 2227 OF 2010(P) (Nagar Parishad, Malkapur and another ..vs.. Sachin s/o Rambhau Kshirsagar & ors.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the appellants, Shri S.D. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1, Shri T.A. Mirza, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 06 th OCTOBER, 2010 1. What is under challenge in these Letters Patent Appeal is an 2 interlocutory order refusing interim relief to the appellants in the writ petitions, which have been admitted for final hearing by the learned Single Judge. 2. The learned Single Judge and Labour Court found clear cut violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the part of appellants-employer. 3. Shri Thakur, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 cited a decision in the case of Anoop Sharma .vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) reported in 2010-III-LLJ-1(SC). Relying on paragraph 13 thereof, he argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently stated the law that “these provisions are mandatory and the action of the employer becomes nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated.” 4. In view of this position, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned interim order made by the learned Single Judge. However, we reserve liberty in favour of the appellants to apply for early hearing of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. Hence, all the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma