1 wp 9646.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9646 OF 2011 Anil Tukaram Gherde and others .. Petitioners Versus Evergreen Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ahmednagar, through Manager and others .. Respondents Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioners have filed Complaint ULP No. 36/2005 seeking the relief to the extent that the respondents be directed to comply the provisions of the Factories Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act. So also further directions not to terminate the services of the employees, to pay the arrears of the wages as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The said proceedings is still pending with the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. During the pendency of said proceedings, the 2 wp 9646.11 present petitioners moved an application Exhibit U-37 seeking directions against the respondents for keeping separate muster roll of the petitioners and to take signature on the same every day and to pay minimum wages. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Barde, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the reliefs sought in application Exhibit U-37 were necessary. The Industrial Court has misinterpreted the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 9131/2010. The said reliefs claimed in the application Exhibit U-37 were well within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. It is the duty of the employer to maintain the muster roll and take the signature of the employees and to pay minimum wages. The Industrial Court has not taken into consideration the merits of the application and has rejected it on altogether non existing grounds. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order and the application. On a query being made, it was submitted by Shri Barde, the learned counsel for petitioners that the evidence of the petitioners is under way in the said complaint. The complaint is of the year 2005. The same is at the 3 wp 9646.11 fag-end. It would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition at this stage against the orders passed on interlocutory application. The interest of justice would be sub served, if the Industrial Court is directed to dispose of complaint on its own merits expeditiously. 4. In view of above I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Instead the Industrial Court is directed to dispose of the said Complaint ULP No. 36/2005 as expeditiously as possible and preferably by the end of May 2012. 5. Needless to state, the Industrial Court would consider all the grievance put forth by the respective parties. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11