1 wp-8090.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8090 OF 2010 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Piraji s/o Gangadhar Setwad, Age: 35 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Pethwadaj, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded. 2. Scheduled Tribe, Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad through its Chairman. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. G.B. Gastagar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 (Absent). ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2 wp-8090.10 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Labour Court, Latur below application Exhibit-U2 dated 10-02-2010 in Complaint (ULP) No. 47 of 2009. By the impugned order, the application Exhibit-U2 came to be allowed. The petitioner herein was directed to allow the complainant to join his duty with immediate effect till the decision of main complaint. 3. When this petition was heard for admission on 06-09-2010, this Court issued notice to the respondents and ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) was granted. By subsequent order dated 26-10-2010 this Court directed the petitioner herein not to fill up the vacancy created on account of termination of services of respondent No.1, until further orders. Same order is continued. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the 3 wp-8090.10 petitioner submits that, by way of interim order final relief was granted by the Labour Court thereby directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent No.1, therefore, order impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that, interim order passed by this Court can be continued till final disposal of the main complaint and depending upon the outcome of the said complaint, the petitioner will take appropriate steps. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that, only on the ground of tribe validity certificate was not submitted before the authority, his services came to be terminated and if that is the sole ground, and since validity certificate is issued in favour of the respondent No.1, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. However, both Counsel agreed that the direction can be given to the Labour Court to decide the complaint within two months from today. 4 wp-8090.10 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. From reading of the impugned order, it prima facie does appear that, final relief is granted at the interim stage. It is true that the sole ground on which services of the respondent No.1 were terminated, was that the tribe validity certificate was not submitted within time. However, it is also admitted position that subsequently tribe claim of the respondent No.1 is validated and the validity certificate is issued. Main complaint is pending before the Labour Court. 7. In that view of the matter, ends of justice would meet if the Labour Court is directed to decide the Complaint (ULP) No. 47 of 2009 within two months today. It is needless to mention that it would be open for the respondent No.1 to bring to the notice of the Labour Court the authoritative pronouncement in the case of 5 wp-8090.10 Sudhir Vasantrao Dhekan vs. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others in Writ Petition No. 2856 of 2010 reported in 2010(5) Mh. L.J. 353. 8. In the result, the impugned order in this petition shall remain stayed till disposal of the complaint. The petitioner herein will not fill up the vacancy created on account of termination of services of respondent No.1 till disposal of the main complaint and two weeks thereafter. It is needless to mention that the parties to the complaint will co-operate the Labour Court in disposing of the complaint. 9. Rule made absolute to the above extent. Writ Petition stands allowed on the above terms and disposed of. . It is needless to mention that none of the contentions of the parties are adjudicated on 6 wp-8090.10 merits in this petition. It is open to the parties to adjudicate all contentions available in law before the Labour Court. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11