1 W.P. 7558.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7558 OF 2011 The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. : Osmanabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Shridhar Bhanudas Sakhare Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : S.T. Colony, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. : Osmanabad. .... RESPONDENT Mr. D.S.Bagul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.V.Naiknaware, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 09/12/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2 W.P. 7558.2011 - [ J ] 2. The present respondent has filed Complaint before the Labour Court bearing ULP No. 31 of 2011 challenging the show cause notice issued by the present petitioner. The present respondent also filed an application Exh. U-2. The Labour Court rejected the application Exh. U-2 vide order dated 08/09/2011. The present petitioner thereafter terminated/dismissed the present respondent from service vide termination order dated 10/09/2011. The present respondent preferred Revision before the Industrial Court challenging the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application Exh. U-2. The said Revision is still pending. The Industrial Court passed order below Exh. U-2 and stayed the effect of the show cause notice, so also, the order dismissing the present respondent. The employer has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. Mr. D.S. Bagul, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination has already taken effect. The said order is without jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Naiknawre, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that the employer had shown undue 3 W.P. 7558.2011 - [ J ] haste and the facts on record necessitates the stay of the said dismissal order and the show cause notice. The provisions are violated by the petitioner/Corporation while resorting to the impugned action. 6. When the order of dismissal is already passed, there is no propriety in staying the show cause notice, so also the order of dismissal has taken effect on 10/09/2011. Thereafter, there is no question of staying the order on 14/09/2011. The said order of dismissal has already taken effect. No reasons are given by the Industrial Court while passing the said order. The termination order is not challenged by the respondent. In such circumstances, the Industrial court would not have exercised the jurisdiction to stay the same. 7. The order impugned is unsustainable and as such is set aside. At the interim stage, the said order of dismissal could not have been stayed. If eventually the present respondent succeeds in the Complaint, then in such circumstances, the respondent would be entitled for all the benefits. 8. Mr. Naiknaware, the learned counsel submits that the 4 W.P. 7558.2011 - [ J ] respondent may be given opportunity to amend the Complaint. The respondent is at liberty to file application for amendment of the Complaint, which application the Labour Court would consider on its own merits. 9. The parties agree to appear before the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall decide the Complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of nine ( 9 ) months. 10. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 7558.2011 - [ J ]