1 lpa328.11gp.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7115 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 391 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2011 ALONG WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7116 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2011 Mr. Arvind Kashinath Chavan & Ors. ....Appellants. Vs. M/s. Gharda Chemicals Limited & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Jane Cox for the Appellants. Mr. M.V. Joglekar with Mr. Rahul Oak for the Respondents. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 17 OCTOBER, 2011. 2 lpa328.11gp.sxw ssm P.C. :- Admittedly the Departmental Inquiry against the Appellants is completed. Show cause Notice with a report of the Inquiry Officer has been given. At this stage, without permitting the employer to consider the explanation and decide what the punishment if at all is to be imposed on a workmen, the workmen approached the Labour Court seeking an order restraining the employer from imposing any punishment on the basis of the Inquiry report. In our opinion, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have rightly declined to interfere at this stage. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants requested that in any case the employer should be directed in case an order of punishment is issued not to give effect to that order for a specified period, obviously to enable the Appellant to approach the Labour Court and seek suitable interim order. We would have considered such a request had there been no power vested by the Unfair Labour Practice Act in the Labour Court and in the Industrial Court to make a mandatory order if the circumstances of the case so warrant. In our opinion, therefore, even if an order terminating the services of the 3 lpa328.11gp.sxw ssm workmen is made, the workmen would be free to approach the Labour Court for appropriate interim order. 3 In this view of the matter, therefore the Appeals are rejected. All the contentions available to both the sides obviously will remain open in the event of order imposing punishment being made. 4 Civil Application No. 391 of 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 328 of 2011 and Civil Application No.392 of 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 329 of 2011 are also disposed of. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)