IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.295 OF 2009 Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai ...Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, BEST Workers Union ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Kavita Anchan Amin i/b M.V.Kini & Co. for Petitioner. Ms.Neeta Karnik for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. APRIL 29, 2009. APRIL 29, 2009. APRIL 29, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Ms.Karnik waives notice for Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. : 2 : 4. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court dated 3rd October 2008 in complaint being ULP No.352 of 2008. By this order, the Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner to recruit two named employees in the post of clerk in Grade A/GV as per settlement pursis dated 29th June 2007 filed in Complaint (ULP) No.538 of 2006. It is not in dispute that the substantive relief claimed in the main complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.352 of 2008 is for direction against the Petitioner to recruit the two named employees in the post of clerk. In other words, the Industrial Court by the impugned decision has passed mandatory order against the Petitioner. The sole reason recorded to pass such a drastic order is that no condition has been mentioned in the settlement pursis that past record of the concerned employees would be considered and taken into account before giving benefit to the concerned employees of the settlement terms recorded in pursis dated 29th June 2007. : 3 : 5. In the first place, the settlement terms does not preclude the Petitioner to consider the case of the concerned employees for promotion as per the rules. The Petitioner’s case is that the named two employees were found unfit for promotion as per the rules. The fact as to whether the said view taken by the Management is appropriate or otherwise is a matter which will have to be decided in the pending complaint. I have no hesitation in taking the view that the sole basis on which the Industrial Court proceeded to pass mandatory order, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order impugned in this Petition is set-aside. Instead, the Industrial Court is directed to consider the complaint on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in the said proceedings are left open to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned decision or for that matter the present matter. 6. The Industrial Court shall dispose of the pending complaint as expeditiously as possible, preferably by end of September 2009. : 4 : 7. Parties assure through Counsel to extend full cooperation to the Industrial Court for early disposal of the main complaint. Ordered accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.