1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1026 OF 2010 Shri Vijay S/o Kisan Manore Age : 36 years, Occ : At Present Nil, R/o Tulshinagar, Tq.Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon. ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Bhusawal, Tq.Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon. ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr.P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr.G.V. Wani, advocate for respondent ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 4 th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders rendered by the learned Judge of Labour Court, Jalgaon on 14.07.2009 in Complaint (ULP) No.24/2009 and by the learned Member of Industrial Court, Jalgaon on 2.11.2009 in Revision Application (ULP) No.36/2009. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions and pleadings raised by the parties. It 2 would suffice to state that the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that his appointment was illegal. He was appointed on the establishment of the respondent no.1 Municipal Council to work in the Fire Brigade Department. He was competent for the post and was duly selected. The contention of the respondent was that the petitioner did not possess heavy duty driving license at the time of filing of application for the said post. Along with the present petitioner, there were four similarly placed employees. It appears that in the complaint application filed by petitioner, ad-interim relief was sought by him and same was refused by the Labour Court. He, therefore, preferred revision application which has been dismissed and as such, present Petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the outset, let it be noted that the petitioner has placed on record the copy of his driving license (Exh."C" to the Petition), which prima facie show that he was duly qualified at the relevant time being holder of the license as required. There is no dispute about the fact that he had undergone the necessary training. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed the driving license at the time of submitting the application for the post in response to the advertisement dated 05.04.2008. It appears 3 that the driving license was issued much before the due date of such application. In other words, there is prima facie case in favour of the petitioner-Vijay Manore. It appears that the learned Judge of the Labour Court and the learned Member of the Industrial Court failed to consider and duly appreciate the existence of the prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and rejected his application for interim relief without there being valid ground to do so. In this view of the matter, the Petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside to the extent of petitioner-Vijay Manore. The Labour Court shall stay the effect of termination order until the final disposal of the complaint application filed by him. The main complaint application be expedited for final hearing and shall be decided within a period of one year as far as possible on merits thereof. It is made clear that all the points are kept open and observations made by this Court be not treated as conclusive or final for the purpose of deciding the main complaint application filed by petitioner-Vijay Manore. Rule is made absolute. No costs. [V.R.KINGAONKAR] JUDGE gas/