wp2839.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.2839/2011 Managing Director, The Akola Janta Comm.Co-op. Bank Ltd. Akola -vs- Kashinath Vishwanath Dhamode ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri D. R. Goenka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.G.Zinjarde, learned counsel for the respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 09/08/2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/06/2011, by which order the interim application Exhibit-37 filed by the respondent workman came to be rejected. However, the petitioner herein was directed not to give effect to the transfer order dated 01/06/2011 in respect of the complainant and his wife till the concluding of the hearing in Complaint ULP No.50/2006. The cause for filing the said Complaint ULP is the imposition of punishment of barring three increments imposed on the respondent herein. The matter had reached earlier this Court against an interlocutory order passed in the said Complaint ULP. This Court had permitted the Industrial Court Akola to hear and dispose of the said Complaint ULP by 31st March, 2011. wp2839.11.odt 2/2 The preliminary issue as regards the fairness of the enquiry conducted against the respondent has been decided by an order dated 5th August, 2011 as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the said issue has been decided in favour of the Bank. The complaint is now at the stage where only the arguments of the parties have to be heard on the proportionality of the punishment. In my view, therefore, without interdicting with the directions as contained in clause No.4 of the impugned order, it would be just and proper to dispose of the above petition by directing the Industrial Court to dispose of the said Complaint ULP No.50/2006 by 31st October, 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent workman agrees that no motion for unnecessary adjournments would be made before the Industrial Court and that the respondent would cooperate in the early disposal of the said Complaint as directed by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE KHUNTE