1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2583 OF 2009 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 385 OF 2009 Municipal Corpn of Gr. Mumbai .......Petitioners versus Commissioner of Labour & anr........Respondents. Mr. E.P. Bharucha Sr. adv. i/b. M.V. Kini & co. for the Petitioner Mr. A.K. Jalisatgi AGP for Respondent /State. Mr. P.K. Rele Sr. adv. With V.N. Tayade i/b Nita Karnik for respondent no.3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL Acting .C.J. AND B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 01st February, 2010. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 15 of the BIR Act 1946. It is the contention of the petitioner that subsequent to the judgment passed by the Labour Court in Application (BIR-1/S) No.1 of 2007 dated 31-8-2009, an application has been filed by the present petitioner for proceedings under sec. 15 of the BIR Act. It is submitted that 2 though the said judgment has been challenged before the learned Single Judge of this court and though the petition has been heard, no interim relief is granted. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submits that since there is no impediment in the way of respondent no.1, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been proceeded in accordance with the law. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 objects to the present petition. However we find that since there is no interim relief in the petition filed by respondent no.3, before the learned Single Judge, there would be no impediment for the respondent no.1 to proceed with the application. We make it clear that if the respondent no.3 has any objection, the same may be raised by it before respondent no.1 which shall be considered in accordance with the law. We expect the respondent no.1 to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from today. . (Acting C.J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)