1 W.P.No.4655/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4655 OF 2011. 1. Balasaheb Marutrao Borate, Age 50 years,Occ.Chairman, Shri Sant Savata Ashram Shikshan Samiti, Mahatma Phule Vidya Mandir, Maliwada, Ahmednagar. 2. Raosaheb Shankar Kakade, AGe 49 years, Occ.Service as Head Master, Shri Sant Savata Ashram, Mahatma Phule Vidya Mandir, Maliwada, Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. Versus Ashok Kondiram Tilekar, Age 34 years, Occ.Labour, R/o 4821, Par Galli, Maliwada, Ahmednagar. ... Respondent. ... Mr.N.C.Garud, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.08.2011. 2 W.P.No.4655/11 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent had filed a complaint (ULP) No.702/1995 against the Chairman of Sant Savata Ashram Shikshan Samiti, Head Master of Sant Savata Ashram, Mahatma Phule Vidya Mandir and Prashasan Adhikari. The Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar allowed the said complaint and directed the Respondent No.1 therein i.e. the Chairman of the said Sant Savata Ashram Shikshan Samiti to give permanency to the complainant in Primary School with consequential benefits. It seems that the said order was not complied and as such the Respondent filed proceedings before the Labour Court to proceed against the petitioners U/s 48(1) of the MRTU and PULP Act. The Labour Court allowed the same and issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners have assailed the same before the 3 W.P.No.4655/11 Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 4. Mr.Garud, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the process could not have been issued against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is filed in the High Court against the order of the Industrial Court. The High Court has admitted Writ Petition and had granted Rule on interim relief and interim relief. Subsequently, Rule on interim relief is vacated. That would not mean that the interim relief is not vacated. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Govinda Bhagoji Kamable and others Vs. Sadu Bapu Kamable and others" reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 651. The learned counsel further contends that no process could have been issued even otherwise against the petitioner No.2 as no orders were passed against petitioner No.2 by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court. 4 W.P.No.4655/11 5. Mr.Jaybhar, learned counsel submits that the stay granted by this Court in Writ Petition was vacated when the Rule on interim relief was discharged. The authorities have properly passed the order. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the orders. No doubt, the Writ Petition was filed by the petitioners. This Court has admitted the said Writ Petition. Initially Rule on interim relief and interim relief was granted but subsequently Rule on interim relief is vacated. It would mean that interim relief is also vacated. There was no stay to the judgment of the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court, directing the petitioner No. 1 to grant permanency to the Respondent along with consequential benefits. The said order has not been complied. The Labour Court was within its powers to proceed U/s 48 of the MRTU and PULP Act, but as there was no order against the petitioner No.2 to grant permanency, the process could not have been issued as against the petitioner No.2. The authorities have committed 5 W.P.No.4655/11 an error in issuing the process as against the petitioner No.2. 7. In light of the above, I quash and set aside the process issued against the petitioner No.2 i.e. order dated 17.9.2009, passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.2/2009 and order dated 1.12.2010 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application No.56/2009 to the extent of the petitioner No.2. 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute in favour of petitioner No.2 and the Writ Petition is dismissed as far as petitioner No.1 is concerned. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp4655.11 6 W.P.No.4655/11