1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.10541 OF 2004 PETITION NO.10541 OF 2004 PETITION NO.10541 OF 2004 Vinod Ramchandra Keshwan ..Petitioner vs 1. Union ofIndia & anr .. Respondents Mr.H.S.S.Murthy with Mr.S.P.Munghate for Petitioner Mr.J.S.Saluja, with Mr.Nemesh Sharma i/b M.V.Kini & Co for Respondents .. CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J DATE: DATE: DATE: 23rd September, 2005 23rd September, 2005 23rd September, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has impugned award dated 17th May, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 Mumbai. It appears that that there were 3 applications representing 3 sets of workmen for interim relief and they have been dismissed by the impugned 2 interlocutory order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner’s name is in the group of 18 workmen represented by Mr.M.S.Todenkar Advocate and in the impugned award the learned Presiding Officer of the tribunal has observed that the petitioner was not in service of the company and therefore his claim for grant of interim relief was rejected. 2. These observations in the impugned order are in a prima facie nature and it does not act as a estoppel against the petitioner to prove therwise during the trial of the main petition by leading evidence. 3. Save and except the above clarification the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, J) J) J)