(1) LPA.254.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6824 OF 2010 Smt. Surekha w/o Bhagwat Digole APPELLANT VERSUS Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tandale, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for the respondent no.3 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The appellant is an Anganwadi Helper, whose services are terminated. She challenged the order of termination before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner rejected the appellant's contention and, therefore, the appellant filed Writ Petition no. 6824 of 2010. By the order dated 30.7.2010, the learned Single Judge has also dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal. (2) LPA.254.2010 2. In our opinion, the appellant ought to have taken recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in order to challenge her termination from service. In the case of "Sau Vidya w/o Vishnu Vanare Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (2) ALL MR 627" the Nagpur Bench of this Court has held that an Anganwadi Helper is a "workman" as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as Anganwadis are "Industries" within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal is therefore dismissed. However, the appellant may approach the forum available under the labour laws for redressal of her grievance. In case the appellant does invoke the remedies available under the aforesaid laws, the decisions of the Divisional Commissioner and of the learned Single Judge of this Court will not influence the Industrial/Labour Court while deciding whether (3) LPA.254.2010 the termination of services of the appellant is legal and proper. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp/