(1) LPA.61.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2947 OF 2010 IN L.P.A.61 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar Ramchandra Patil Age : 38 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Pmbhai, Post Neemgaon, Tq. Yeawl, Dist. Jalgaon APPELLANT/ APPLICANT VERSUS The Chief Officer, Nagar Palika Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Ajit B. Kale, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Vinod Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant any interim relief while admitting the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The appellant had apprehended his termination from service and, therefore had filed Complaint (U.L.P.) no. 20 of 2002 under item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair (2) LPA.61.2010 Labour Practices, 1971 (for short "The M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act"). The Labour Court directed the respondents not to terminate the services of the appellant without following the due process of law. This order has been confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision and later by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a Writ Petition. 2. During the pendency of those proceedings, the petitioner filed complaint (U.L.P.) no. 6 of 2004 under items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. That Complaint was dismissed. The appellant therefore filed a Writ Petition before this Court, in which Rule has been granted without there being any interim relief to the appellant. 3. We have been informed by the learned Advocate appearing for the Municipal Council that the appellant has been terminated from service on 28.1.2010. Under these circumstances, the appellant would have to challenge that order before the appropriate forum. No interim relief can be granted in the Writ Petition filed by him which is with (3) LPA.61.2010 respect to his permanency and regularisation in service. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 4. Mr. Kale appearing for the appellant prays that the interim order by which the appellant has been continuing in service, should be continued for a stipulated period. We are not inclined to pass such an order since an order of termination of the services of the petitioner has been passed in January, 2010. 5. In view of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application no. 2947 of 2010, seeking stay also stands dismissed. 6. A copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to the parties, on their request. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp/