1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 969 OF 2009 The Municipal Council, Tuljapur ...Petitioner Versus Shivaji @ Kulshalpriya Maruti Dake & Anr ...Respondents ..... Mr. K.K.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent No.2 None for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 7TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent No.2. 2 This petition takes exception to the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Industrial Court,Latur in complaint (ULP) No. 3 of 2008. It is not necessary to narrate the facts since the interim order passed by the Industrial Court is under challenge in this petition. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to page 14 of the compilation Exh.A, which is resolution, 2 passed by the Standing committee of the Municipal Council, Tuljapur and submitted that the as per the said resolution respondent No.4 was appointed only for three months. He invited my attention the last two sentences of the said resolution and tired to submit that those sentences can be read as the respondents alongwith other 19 persons were appointed for three months. Learned counsel fairly concedes that no independent appointment order in pursuance to this resolution was issued. 4 On careful perusal of Exh.”A” at page 14, I find that said last two sentences of the resolution do indicate that the appointment appointing about 20 persons to be issued within three months and for that Standing committee gives permission. It further indicate that there is no stipulation of three months period of which the respondent was appointed. Taking into consideration the documents which were made available in the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court has directed the petitioner Council not to terminate the services of the respondent NO.1 herein pending trial of complaint. I do not think that the impugned order calls for any interference. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed summarily. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/aug9/7/wp969.09 3