1 wp 3184.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3184 OF 2010 Akhil Maharashtra Akyavardhak Sarva Shramik Sanghatana through its President, Lahuji Bhaurao Hiwale .. Petitioner Versus Kokan Agro Marine Industries Private Ltd. .. Respondent Shri M. S. Indani / U. M. Indani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. K. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri D. M. Kakani, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Indani, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.09.2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad thereby quashing the order passed by the Labour Court below Exhibit - U-2 in Complaint ULP No. 09/2005. 2 wp 3184.10 2. Shri Indani, the learned counsel contends that the order below Exhibit - U - 2 was passed by the learned Labour Court by considering the merits of the matter. Even when the Industrial Court set aside the order, it should have clarified that if Exhibit - C - 3 filed by the respondent is decided against it, then the earlier order passed below Exhibit - U - 2 should be restored. The Industrial Court committed an error in not clarifying the same. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's employees are out of employment for more than five years and it is a question of their livelihood. They are facing starvation. 3. Exhibit - U - 2 was decided by the Labour Court in favour of the present petitioner. Same was assailed in the revision by the present respondent. The revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Labour Court below Exhibit - U - 2 and has directed the Labour Court to decide application Exhibit - C - 3 filed by the present respondent first. Thereafter, the Labour Court has decided the Exhibit - C - 3 and against that revision was filed by the respondent. The said revision was allowed and again matter was remanded to Labour Court for deciding Exhibit - C - 3 afresh. The Labour Court thereafter, again rejected the application Exhibit - C - 3, against which revision is filed by the 3 wp 3184.10 present respondent before the Industrial Court bearing No. 08/2010. The same is not yet decided by the revisional Court, inter alia, the application Exhibit - U - 2 also is not been decided by the Labour Court which deals with the interim relief regarding reinstatement of the petitioners. 4. No doubt, as pointed by Shri Indani, the learned counsel, this Court had granted interim relief and the same was in operation for sometime. The respondent did not act upon the said interim relief. The proceedings for contempt were also initiated and this Court had also clarified that after a particular date interim orders are not continued. Taking into account the whole conspectus, it would be in nobodies interest to keep the matter pending. In the result I pass the following order. 5. The Industrial Court is directed to decide the Revision No. 08/2010 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Depending upon the decision given by the Industrial Court in Revision No. 08/2010, the Labour Court shall thereafter expeditiously decide application Exhibit - U - 2 filed by the present petitioner. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with above 4 wp 3184.10 observations and directions. 7. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) deposited by the respondent shall be transmitted to the Labour Court where the dispute is pending and shall be kept in F.D.R. and same would be subject to the further orders passed by the Labour Court. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11