:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay ..Petitioner versus Suryakant Pundlik Patil ..Respondent Mr. G. S. Hegde i/b. G. S. Hegde & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. H. M. Inamdar for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Industrial Court dated 20.12.2008 as follows: "The Complainant is a "workman" within a meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and "employee" within the meaning of Sec. 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, as such, complaint is maintainable in law, and :2: therefore, the application below Exh. U-2 of interim relief rejected on 29.03.2008 shall stand allowed." Earlier, after the Industrial Court had held that the respondent is not a workman and rejected the application for interim relief, this Court had merely directed that the observations contained in the impugned order are confined to the disposal of the application for interim relief and observed as follows: "....However the Industrial Court is requested to said down the schedule for the expeditious disposal of the case, preferably by the end of 2008. Subject to the aforesaid Petition is disposed of." Obviously, what was contemplated by this Court was that the Industrial Court should expeditiously dispose of the case itself, viz. the complaint. There was no reason for the Industrial Court to consider the application for interim relief and that too in the manner it has done. The application for interim relief had already been rejected. The Industrial Court could not have declared that the :3: application already rejected shall stand allowed. Such an order is not warranted by any procedure established in law. The impugned order is therefore set aside. As ordered earlier, the Industrial Court shall decide the main complaint not later than four months after the parties before it. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Court on 30.3.2009. 3. The following part of this Order is passed by consent and without prejudice to the rights of either party: The respondent shall make a representation to the petitioner for a fresh posting at a suitable place. The petitioner shall consider giving a posting to the respondent as far as possible near the respondent’s present place of posting. The petitioner shall take a decision on the respondent’s representation within four weeks of receiving it. Order accordingly. 4. Rule made absolute in the above terms. :4: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)