1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5568 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.S.V.Warad, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present petitioner had filed complaints (ULP) Nos.80/2010 and 19/2011 against the order of suspension and the act of issuance of charge- sheet respectively. The petitioner also prayed for stay of the suspension vide Exh.U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.80/2010. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The charge-sheet has been sought to be 2 stayed. In fact, the petitioner is armed with an order directing the Respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner in a separate Complaint (ULP). In view of the fact that there are directions of the Court restraining the Respondent from terminating the services of the petitioner, there is no need to stall the inquiry. The view taken by the Court in this regard is proper. As far as suspension is concerned, the same is not by way of punishment but pending inquiry. The Respondent have every authority to suspend the employee pending inquiry. The Labour Court has discussed in detail about the said aspect. I do not find any error by the Court while rejecting the application Exh.U-2 in Complaint (ULP) Nos.80/2010 and 19/2011. 4. Mr.Warad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner be permitted to engage an advocate in the inquiry as the representative of the Respondent is a law graduate. So also, the Inquiry Officer is the one who looks after the legal matters of the Respondent. The complaint (ULP) No.15/2010 is 3 pending with the Industrial Court. The petitioner is at liberty to make such application for engaging the advocate in the inquiry before the Industrial Court in the pending complaint. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.25.08.2011. asp/office/wp5568.11 4