1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3064 OF 2008 Prabhakar Anna Kshirsagar ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Sachin S. Bhalerao for the Petitioner. Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.S. Bapat and Mr. H. N. Vakil i/b Mulla & Mulla for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 2nd May, 2008. P.C. : 1. The services of the Petitioner were terminated on 31st January, 2006 on account of continued ill-health. In a complaint of unfair labour practices which was instituted on 28th April, 2006, the Labour Court declined to grant interlocutory relief by way of reinstatement. The order of the Labour Court is confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court on 18th February, 2008. 2. At the prima facie stage, the Labour Court has taken a tentative view of the matter based on the material on the record. The exercise of discretion by the Labour Court at the interlocutory 2 stage would not warrant interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The submission of the Petitioner before this Court is that he had applied for leave only between 27th January, 2005 and 31st March, 2005 and not thereafter, on medical grounds. This prima facie is not factually correct since the reasons appended to the letter dated 31st January, 2006 recording reasons for the termination refer to the letters addressed by the Petitioner on 20th January, 2005, 25th January, 2005, 2nd February, 2005, 3rd February, 2005, 2nd May, 2005, 22nd August, 2005 and 7th September, 2005 and 5th December, 2005 to the effect that he was suffering from ill health. The Petitioner remained absent from duty for a total period of 365 days between 1st Jan, 2005 and 18th January, 2006. Despite repeated letters from the management the Petitioner admittedly refused to appear before the Medical Board as suggested by the management. In these circumstances, a reference was made to Dr. Hardikar who was treating the Petitioner and who furnished a medical opinion in regard to the inability of the Petitioner to perform his work due to a chronic spinal disorder. The interference of this Court consequently would not be warranted. In the event that the Petitioner succeeds in his complaint before the Labour Court, consequential reliefs can be 3 granted at that stage. An interim mandatory order of reinstatement was not warranted in the facts of the present case. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. *****