950-LPA-92-2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1433 OF 2002 (D) (Latari s/o Sambhaji Thakre Vs. Ultra Techcem Company Limited) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. R.G. Somkuwar, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.B. Puranik, Senior Counsel with Mr. M.R. Puranik, Counsel for the respondent. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. SEPTEMBER 4, 2026 On 28/8/2026, following order was passed : “Heard. 2. Argument of respondent is that even if Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, the complaint filed by petitioner before the Labour Court under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, would not be maintainable. Our attention is invited to the law laid down by this Court in Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd., Chandrapur .Vs. Shrinivas Narayanrao Moharil [2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 637], wherein learned Single Judge observed thus: “6. Thus, before me, fact that the petitioner is controlled industry and Central Government is appropriate government in relation to it, is not in dispute. The fact that provisions of MRTU and PULP Act apply only if State Government is appropriate government is also not in dispute. The question is whether because of delegation of its power under section 39 of the Act by Central Government to State Government, the provisions of MRTU 2026:BHC-NAG:11684-DB 950-LPA-92-2010 2 and PULP Act can become applicable to the petitioner – establishment.” 3. This finding is based on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Mazgaon Dock Ltd. Vs. Shivbrat Jagroop Mishra and anr.; [2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1495]. Thus, it appears that no fruitful purpose will be served even if Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, for the reason that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was not maintainable in terms of the law laid down in the aforesaid case. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks time to go through the judgment and make his submissions. Granted. 5. Stand over next week.” 2] In response, the Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to avail remedy as is available in law. 3] Permission is granted. The appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, subject to no other legal impediment. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/09/2026 16:18:16