1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4031/2011 (DINESH NANDKISHOR MISHRA VERSUS CHIEF OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ACHALPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.V. Mohokar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner challenges the interlocutory order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 29.04.2011 allowing an application filed by the respondent for grant of stay to the judgment passed by the Labour Court on 20.07.2010 in Complaint U.L.P. No.53/2010, during the pendency of the revision application. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2011, it appears that the Industrial Court was justified in granting stay to the order passed by the Labour Court on 20.07.2010 during the pendency of the revision. The Industrial Court observed that the respondent had raised various legal and factual grounds in the revision application and since no work was available with the respondent, the reinstatement of the petitioner in service would be a forced employment. It is necessary to note that it was the case of the respondent in the written statement that the respondent used to engage labourers for manual work at the construction site as and 2 when the work was available and the labourers, who desired to work, used to visit the site of work. The Industrial Court considered the fact that there was no work available at the construction site and in case, the petitioner was reinstated, it would cause serious hardship to the respondent. Since there were fair chances of the respondent succeeding in the revision application, the Industrial Court held that the purpose of filing the revision would be frustrated in case the impugned order was not stayed. It cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or perversity. Therefore, the same cannot be interfered in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgments reported in 2010-III-LLL-1 (SC) (Anoop Sharma Versus Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana)) and 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 967 (Motor Industries Co. Ltd., Nashik Versus Deelip Dault Deore & others) cannot be applied to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The Industrial Court is, however, directed to decide the revision application filed by the respondent as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE APTE