1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 125/2011 IN W.P. NO. 5643/2010 ( Arvind Ramdas Valke vs,. Ispat Industries Ltd. ) ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 26, 2011. Heard Advocate A.S. Chandurkar, for appellant and Mr. Puranik with Advocate Kumar for respondent-sole. In a ULP Complaint instituted in the year 1999 interim relief of providing lighter job was granted by the Industrial Court on 4.2.2000. The matter remained pending and in 2010 i.e. on 20th September, 2010 the present appellant filed an application claiming undisputed wages as interim relief. The amount claimed is Rs.47,77,550/- and leave was sought to withdraw the amount of Rs.9,20,550/- from the said amount. 2 The employer had pointed out that services of the appellant were terminated on 30th July, 2003 itself. During hearing, it has become clear that alleged termination has not been questioned independently. By relying upon the provisions of Section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and praying anaology thereof, and from judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Maharashtra State Road Trnasport Corporation vs. Ambadas Sadav Hingane reported at 2008 (5) Mh.l.J. 208, Shri Chandurkar is trying to demonstrate that termination dated 30th July 2003 needs to be ignored as it is void and, therefore the appellant continues in employment and remains entitled to receive the regular salary. As that salary has not been paid, the arrears have been claimed and there is a prayer to release the current monthly wages and other benefits regularly. He argues that this later part, in any case, has not been looked into. According to Advocate Puranik, the termination dated 30th July 2003 is on record of Industrial Court and it is not rendered void automatically. He therefore, contends that unless and until there is adjudication of entitlement to receive salary for that period, no interim relief can be given. He further points out that after said termination, the appellant got himself enrolled as an Advocate and 3 that enrollment continues even today. He, therefore, argues that appellant is not entitled to claim any wages or arrears as he he has not disclosed his enrollment as an Advocate to Industrial Court. We are not inclined to go into all these disputed facts. It is apparent that the prayer for interim relief has been made for the first time on 20th September, 2010 and the facts nowhere disclosed the reason for moving such an application belatedly. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere. Since the Compliant is of the year 1999 the Industrial Court shall endeavour to dispose it of on its own merits as expeditiously as possible. Without observing anything on merits of the controversy, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE sahare