1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5126 OF 2005 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 13, 2007. Heard Shri Kankale, learned AGP for the petitioners and Shri Meghe, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned AGP contends that the employee was not appointed against any post and no written order was issued to him at any point of time and hence the Court below could not have directed the petitioners to bring him on C.R.T. He states that this aspect is also lost sight of by the Labour Court on 10.4.1997 when it directed his reinstatement. He invites attention to admission given by present respondent that he was never issued any appointment order in writing. Shri Meghe, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that this termination order was challenged by present respondent by filing ULP Complaint No.550 of 1994 before the 2 Labour Court, Yavatmal and on 10.4.1997 Labour Court has allowed that complaint. He states that respondent was reinstated with continuity and accordingly the said period has been clubbed by the Industrial Court to hold that respondent has put in five years of continuous service so as to confer upon him the benefits of Kalelkar Settlement. He contends that accordingly the employee has been directed to be brought on C.R.T. I have perused the orders. I find that earlier judgment of Labour Court dated 10.4.1997 has not been challenged at all and has been implemented. In the circumstances, the contention of learned AGP that the Court below has overlooked the fact that there was no written order of appointment when employee was first given work in 1982, cannot be gone into. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of Industrial Court. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.