1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3636 of 2010 (Pramod D. Warghane v. Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Ltd.) And Writ Petition No.4262 of 2010 (Smt. Usha w/o Sunil Ghui v. Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Ltd.) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.D. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Ananta Bandre, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 25 th October, 2010 These writ petitions challenge the common order dated 1-7-2010 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULPN) Nos.203 and 204 of 2010. By this order, the applications filed by the petitioners for interim relief have been rejected. The petitioners have, therefore, joined the transferred place. The grievance in these petitions is that the Industrial Court has recorded a specific finding in para 21 of its order that the respondent cannot be termed as “Industry”. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that this finding would come in the way of the petitioners at the time of the final disposal of the complaints. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Industrial Court 2 shows that it is only on the basis of the prima facie assessment of the case. Obviously, the Industrial Court would permit the parties to lead evidence to establish whether the respondent is “Industry” or not. The Industrial Court is at liberty to record an independent finding after going through the evidence on the merits of the issue. It cannot, therefore, be said that the finding recorded shall bind the Industrial Court at the time of final adjudication. In view of this, there is no substance in the instant writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl