IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2010 AGAINST WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2009 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2010 (FOR STAY) IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2009 Ashirwad Sizing Works ...........Appellant V/S. Krishnarao Gundu Niungare .........Respondent ------- Mr. M.S. Topkar, adv. for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Mane, adv.for the respondent. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. AND : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10 th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : 1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the appellant-petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5869 of 2009. That petition has been rejected and therefore this Appeal has been filed. 2. We are, of the view that the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Even on merits, there is concurrent finding against the appellant. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, there is no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 3. With the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 79 of 2010 does not survive and becomes infructuous. The same also stands dismissed. (ANIL R. DAVE, C.J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5869 OF 2009 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 64 OF 2010 (FOR STAY) IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5869 OF 2009 Ashirwad Sizing Works ...........Appellant V/S. Hari Shrirang Patil .........Respondent ------ Mr. M.S. Topkar, adv. for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Mane, adv.for the respondent. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. AND : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10 th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : 1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the appellant-petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5869 of 2009. That petition has been rejected and therefore this Appeal has been filed. 2. We are, prima-facie, of the view that the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Even on merits, there is concurrent finding against the appellant. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, there is no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 3. With the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 64 of 2010 does not survive and becomes infructuous. The same also stands dismissed. (ANIL R. DAVE, C.J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)