2206wp464.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.464 OF 2011. The Municipal Council ..vs.. Dinesh Vishveshwarprasad Shrivastava and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R.A.Gupta, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. N.G.Solav, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2011. In so far as the grant of interim relief is concerned, there is concurrent finding recorded against the petitioner. Both, the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court in revision have recorded a finding that respondent no.1 herein would be entitled to interim relief i.e. continuation in service pending the complaint. What has weighed with the courts below is that the respondent no.1 has worked since the year 1977, though on daily wages. It is in the said circumstances that the interim relief has been granted to the respondent no.1. Though it is well settled that the final relief cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage, in my view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the respondent no.1 has put in more than 32 years of service, the grant of interim relief cannot be found fault with. Hence, there is no merit in the above Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed. 2206wp464.11.odt 2 However, it is clarified that since the respondent no.1 has worked for more than 32 years this court has not interfered with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court while dealing with the application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1977. In my view, the interest of justice would be served if hearing of the said Complaint (ULP) No.10 of 2010 is expedited. The said complaint therefore to be decided preferably by 31/12/2012. The contentions of the parties in the main petition are explicitly kept open. JUDGE chute