1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5188 OF 2009 (V.I.D.C. & Anr. vs. Bhaskar Bhagwan Ambhore & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 02, 2009. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel who filed caveat for some of the respondents, has filed pursis seeking leave to withdraw his Vakalatnama. Leave granted. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel is discharged. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that the petitioners are contemplating a policy decision to engage outside agency for such work of seasonal nature. He fairly states that however in this season as the work has now become available, the same is being provided to the respondents. He argues that by the impugned order, the obligation is cast upon the petitioners to provide work to the respondents in this season and also for next year and all the seasons to come during the pendency of complaint. According to them, because of policy decision, the petitioners will not be in a position to 2 provide such work to the respondents. He further states that as work has become available now, the work could not be provided to the respondents from 01.11.2009. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel states that the work was available but was not provided to the respondents. He further states that by the impugned order direction is to provide work till the current season ends and he further states that the alleged policy decision is still not reached by the petitioners. If any such policy decision is reached by the petitioners, same can be pointed out to the Industrial Court and appropriate orders in this respect can be obtained by the petitioners. Whether work was available from 1.11.2009 or it has become available now, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court and dispute of such nature can only be resolved by the competent Court. However, the impugned order clearly shows that the work is to be provided to Respondents No. 1 to 10, this rabi season starting from 01.11.2009 till February 2010 end. The learned Member of Industrial Court has qualified this arrangement by the words “till the final disposal of main complaints on merits”, only because of the fact that it was a interlocutory order. In any case as of today, no policy decision is reached by the petitioners and if any such policy decision is reached in accordance with law, the petitioners have to move Industrial Court pointing out the same and also pointing out the non 3 entitlement of the respondents to such work thereafter. Hence, after said decision is reached, the petitioners can move Industrial Court and seek appropriate orders from it. In this view of the matter, I do not find any case made out warranting interference in the matter at this stage. If the Industrial Court passed any adverse order after any policy decision is placed before it, liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again. With this finding, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.