1 wp2100-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2100 OF 2011 Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Sangh Kolhapur .. Petitioner Versus Kolhapur Municipal Corporation .. Respondent Mr.M.S.Topkar for petitioner Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondent No.1 Mr.P.P.Chavan i/b. R.R.Chile for intervenors. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 23rd August 2011. P.C.: 1] This petition is directed against an order passed by the Industrial Court on 1st and 8th March 2011. That appears to be an order passed below Exh.U-2. That is an application for interim reliefs by the petitioner – original complaint. 2] This Court while issuing notice on this petition on 21st March 2011 granted an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) of this petition. The order reads thus:- “1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2 wp2100-11.doc 2. Though the respondents are served on 17.3.2011, no one appeared on behalf of them when the matter was called out. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner filed affidavit of service. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 4. Issue notice before admission to the respondent, returnable after eight weeks. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads under:- “(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Court be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the resolution No.66 dated 11.2.2011 (Exh.C hereto) passed by the respondent Corporation.” 3] After hearing both sides at some length and finding that the 3 wp2100-11.doc stage at which the petitioner has approached this Court is that of interim reliefs, it would not be proper to express any opinion on the rival contentions particularly when the application Exh.U-2 for interim reliefs has not been disposed of finally. 4] From a reading of the impugned orders, I am satisfied that it can hardly meet the requirements of consideration of application for interim reliefs in a pending complaint alleging unfair labour practice. The Court below ought to have heard the parties at some length and must with their assistsance peruse the record and, thereafter, render prima facie and tentative findings with sufficient clarity and proper reasons. That course has not been adopted and by some cryptic orders, the application was stated to be disposed of. In these circumstances and considering that the ad-interim order passed by this Court has been operating from 21st March 2011, interest of justice would be served if the orders dated 1st and 8th March 2011 are set aside and the application for interim relief is directed to be heard as expeditiously as possible and within a period of eight weeks from today. All contentions of both sides in relation to that 4 wp2100-11.doc application are kept pending. The ad-interim order dated 21st March 2011 passed by this Court to continue till the application for interim reliefs U-2 is disposed of by the trial court. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on rival contentions and each one of them are kept open. Petition disposed of. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)