1 ca633.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 633 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8154 OF 2010 Pandurang S/o Najoba Davkore ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The Superintending Engineer and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.B. Dhage, advocate for applicant. Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondents. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 15th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Prayer is to vacate interim order granted in Writ Petition. The employer has issued show-cause notice to applicant- respondent pointing out his involvement and the fact that he was caught raid handed in Anti Corruption raid. The said show-cause notice was questioned as unfair labour practice before the Labour Court. Labour Court did not grant any interim relief. Employee- applicant therefore approached the Industrial Court in Revision under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act and the Industrial Court has stayed further steps in the matter by the employer. 2 ca633.11 2. This Court has on 7th January, 2011 admitted the matter and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause `D' i.e. the order of Industrial Court has been stayed. 3. Advocate Mr. Dhage for respondent-applicant points out that it is nothing but final relief granted at the interlocutory stage. He contends that if stay is not vacated the petitioner-employer will proceed further and may pass final punishment order thereby rendering the proceedings in ULP Complaint and also judgment of Industrial Court in his favour, redundant. He contends that such interim relief which operates finally can not be granted. In support of his contention the reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at "2011(1) All MR 491 (S.C.)" ( Raja Khan V/s U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and another). 4. The order as granted is being supported by learned Counsel Mr. Godsay for petitioner. He points out that the respondent was caught raid handed by Anti Corruption Department. He further states that service regulation contemplates summary enquiry in such situation and accordingly that procedure has been adopted. He further argues that it is open for applicant-employee to file reply 3 ca633.11 before the inquiry officer and to raise all his objection. 5. After hearing respective Counsel for the parties, I find that the grant of interim relief in such matter can not be treated as improper or prohibited. The applicant-employee was admittedly caught raid handed by the Anti Corruption department and the petitioner-employer is exercising the powers available to it under Service Regulation. Labour Court has rightly rejected the interim prayer. I therefore find no case made out warranting vacation of interim relief already granted. Civil Application is rejected accordingly. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/ca633.11