1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PETANT APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2010 Deelip Manga Chaudhary .. APPELLANT VERSUS The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & another. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondent. ........................... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, J. & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26/2/2010 rendered in Writ Petition No. 8719 of 2009. It appears that the appellant herein being aggrieved by the notices issued to him pursuant to the holding of the enquiry, approached Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 3 of 2009 complaining therein the unfair labour practices being practiced by the present respondents as the enquiry report had not been made available to the appellant. By an interim order, the Labour Court restrained the respondents herein from passing any orders of punishment by way of termination till the disposal of the aforesaid complaint. The interim order of the Labour Court came to be challenged before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon by the respondents herein by filing Revision Application (ULP) No. 8 of 2009. The Revision Application also came to be dismissed with directions of the Industrial Court to the Labour Court to proceed with the complaint and decide the same within 3 months. The respondent herein, being aggrieved by the orders of the two authorities below, filed Writ Petition and against the 2 order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The learned Single Judge of this Court at paragraph no. 4 has observed the subsequent developments i.e. during the pendency of the matter before the Labour Court, the appellant herein was served with the copy of the enquiry report. The learned Single Judge, therefore, observed that the appellant herein would be afforded adequate opportunity to answer the charges and did not consider it necessary to continue the interim order of the Labour Court which was confirmed by the Industrial Court. The learned Single Judge also took into consideration and directed that in the event an adverse order was passed against the appellant, the said order would not be given effect for the period of two weeks in order to facilitate or enable the appellant to avail the remedies available to the appellant in law and challenging the said adverse orders. The learned Single Judge further directed the Labour Court that in the event the challenge to the termination was raised by the petitioner the same be decided in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge. 3. We have heard Mr. Shrikant Patil, learned counsel on behalf of appellant, who has argued at length in support of the various grounds raised in the memorandum of Appeal. According to us, no interference is called for in the order of the learned Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal sans merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/LPA 67.09