1 W.P.No.9433.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9433 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.J.M.Murkute, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner had filed a complaint challenging the show cause notice. Along with the complaint, the petitioner had also filed an application Exh.U-2 for stay of the said show cause notice. Initially the Industrial Court had granted stay. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.11.2011, the same is vacated. The complainant has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Murkute, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court should have considered the prima facie material before it. When the Court had passed an order that within six (6) months, the complaint would be decided then there is no impediment to continue the said interim relief for six (6) months. The learned 2 W.P.No.9433.11 counsel submits that even no proper inquiry had been conducted. The show cause notice itself would depict the said position. According to learned counsel the petitioner is working as Assistant Traffic Inspector and is being sought to be reverted as a Driver which is improper. The learned counsel further contends that though the order of reversion is said to have been published, the same has not yet served on the petitioner. 4. If the Respondents have taken steps in furtherance of the said show cause notice then the petitioner would be required to assail the said action also. If after the rejection of application Exh.U-2, the Respondent has taken any further steps then there is no propriety in staying the said show cause notice. The Industrial Court in its order has observed that in case the complainant succeeds on merits, he can be directed to be reinstated on the said post even with retrospective effect. The Court has also directed expeditious disposal of the complaint within six months. 5. In light of the above, I do not see any propriety in entertaining the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to observe that the Industrial Court has directed that the complaint would be decided within six (6) months from the date of the said order. The Industrial court shall endeavour to dispose of the same within the said period. 6. The Writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no 3 W.P.No.9433.11 order as to costs. 7. Mr.Murkute, learned counsel submits that in case any further order is passed of reversion then the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge the same. Any subsequent orders can be challenged by the petitioner. There is no impediment for the same. The petitioner is at liberty to do so. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.12.2011. asp/office/wp9433.11 4 W.P.No.9433.11