1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2746 OF 2008 Pratap Shivlal Kanade and another ..Petitioners. Vs. Shri Jagdamba Anusuchit Jati Shetkari Vinkari Sahakari Soot Girni Niymit and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Pradip Shingate i/b Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Petitioners. Mr. M.A. Chaudhari for Respondents 1 and 2. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 21st April, 2008. P.C. : The challenge in these proceedings is by the workmen to an interim order of the Industrial Court dated 11th December, 2007 insofar as the second prayer for interim relief was concerned. The first prayer in the application for interim relief was for a direction that the Respondent should continue to operate the textile mill and that the workmen should be paid their wages. The Industrial Court directed the Respondent employer to provide work to the complainants and to pay wages for the work done till the decision of the complaint. That aspect of the matter does not fall for determination in these proceedings since the employer is not before the Court in the challenge and the challenge is by the 2 workmen. The workmen were aggrieved insofar as the Industrial Court declined to grant an injunction against the sale of the machinery. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order it has been observed by the Industrial Court that the documents filed at Exhibit C-4 support the contention of the Respondent employer that the machinery was already sold and that the complainants in their letter dated 29th October, 2007 had also admitted this position. These findings are prima facie findings at the interlocutory stage which do not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227. The Petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations contained in the impugned order are confined to the disposal of the application for interim relief and shall not come in the way of the final disposal of the complaint on merits. *****