1 Pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2652 of 2011 Shri Ramachandra Sataba Harale & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanghraj Rupwate i/b.Mr.Devdas Prakash & Mr.Milind Ingale for the Petitioners Mr.S.S.Pakale with Mr.M.M.Malvankar for the Respondent No.1 Ms.Neeta Karnik i/b.Mr.Vinod Shetty & Ketaki Rege for the Respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10. CORAM:- A.V.NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 9th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenges the interim order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 25.3.2011 on the petitioner’s application in ULP No.457 of 2009. The petitioners were the complainants before the Industrial Court. They filed compliant saying that after they were appointed as Assistant Security Officers, the respondent no.1 Municipal Corporation unilaterally decided to cancel their appointment and revert them back to their original position which was security guard. In view of this apprehension after 2 filing of the compliant, they also moved an application for interim protection to prevent the respondent no.1 from passing further order in the case. The learned Judge, of the lower Court on 10.11.2009 after hearing both the sides, directed both the parties to maintain status quo until the respondent no.1 files reply/written statement. Thereafter within few months a reply was filed. Apparently the order of status quo came to be an end. But admittedly the respondent no.1 did not take any action against the complainants including their reversion to their original position. This situation continued till 25.3.2011. It seems the petitioner /complainants on that day apprehended that the respondent No.1 would assume that the order of status quo had come to an end and would take a precipitative action. They filed an application before the lower Court and sought continuation of the earlier order of status quo. Unfortunately, the learned Judge apparently did not realize the purpose of the application and passed the impugned order which reads as under: “As per the order below U-11 added party is given chance for filing reply on yesterday only. Matter is kept on 1.4.2011 for reply of added party. Complainants has not shown any urgency hence matter be kept on posted date”. 3 2. The order quoted above does not make any sense. The learned Member neither continued the earlier order of status quo nor said that the status quo order had come to an end and he would refuse to continue the same on that day. As said about, this order became subject matter of this writ petition which was filed soon thereafter on 28.3.2011. On 29.3.2011 the petitioner, complainant moved the court for ad interim relief and the learned Judge of this Court asked them to serve copy of the writ petition to the respondent no.1 and thereafter on 30.3.2011 the learned Judge of this Court ensured that the copy of the writ petition was served on the respondent no.1 Corporation, and proceeded to pass an order directing them to maintain status quo and not to revert the petitioner complainants from the post of Assistant Security Officer to the post of Security Guard. In the normal circumstances, I would have continued this order and would have directed the learned Member of the Industrial Court to decide the application of the complainant dated 25.3.2011 on merits and I intend to do so even now. But in the meantime, the respondent no.1, on 29.3.2011 passed the apprehended order reverting the petitioners/ complainants from their post of Security Assistant to Security Guard. 4 3. This order ought not to have been passed when the notice of writ petition was served on 29.3.2011. Even assuming that the notice of the application was served on 30.3.2011, the respondent no.1 Corporation had no business to pass the order because the petitioner’s application of 25.3.2011 was still pending before the lower court and as said above, the learned Member had not passed a specific order refusing to continue the order of status quo. It is not yet decided on merits. In such a situation, the respondent Corporation ought not to have passed the order. Apparently, the order passed by the respondent no.1 is illegal and the petitioners may or may not challenge the same by appropriate proceedings. In view of this following order would be just and proper. ORDER The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. The learned Member shall decide the application of the petitioner complainant dated 25.3.2011 on merits of the case within three months from today, and in the meantime, the order passed by this Court on 30.3.2011 shall continue. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)