JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26/12/2007 in Special Civil Application No.30690/2007 by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the said Special Civil Application relegating the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Payment with all the relevant evidence lying with them with respect to the claim of 18 days salary and directing the Commissioner of Payment to examine it and verify it from the original record and pass an appropriate order, the appellant herein-original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The appellant-original petitioner along with others filed Recovery Application No.2687/1996 under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming the amount of salary of 18 days (for the period prior to winding up of the Company) and other legal dues against the Company in liquidation, which has been closed on 18/06/1984. The learned Labour Court dismissed the said Recovery Application by observing that there was no pre-existing right against the Company and preexisting right against the Company is required to be proved. The learned Labour Court also observed that if the appellant original petitioner and others who filed the Recovery Application are relying upon the settlement and the question of interpretation of such settlement, the same is required to be adjudicated by the Court if the proceedings are initiated under the machinery of the Bombay Industrial Relation Act. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Labour Court in the Recovery Application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the learned Labour Court rejecting the Recovery Application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act reserving the liberty in favour of the appellant-original petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Payment with relevant evidence, which may be available and with respect to the claim. The learned Single Judge directed that as and when the Commissioner of Payment receives such an application with all the relevant records from the appellant-original petitioner the same be considered, examined and verified by the appropriate authority and pass an appropriate reasoned order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant-original petitioner. It is reported that thereafter the appellant-original petitioner has already approached the appropriate authority, which is dismissed/rejected. It is reported that thereafter the appellant-original petitioner has already approached the appropriate authority, which is dismissed/rejected. Under the circumstances, as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is already implemented. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the appellant-original petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Payment with respect to 18 days salary (prior to winding up of the Company) which is under liquidation and in fact thereafter the appellant-original petitioner did make an application, which has been rejected. Under the circumstances, the present application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Civil Application No. 2149 of 2015 In view of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, no order in the Civil Application and the same stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.