1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3011 OF 2009 (DEEPAK V. NILPAWAR & OTH..Vs..MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.S.COOP. & OTH.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri D.C.R. Mishra, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 23, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. This petition by five watchmen who had been engaged by the respondent/ employer is directed against refusal of interim relief by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court. It is the petitioner’s grievance that they were seasonal permanent employees of the respondent. They had been relieved by an order dated 2nd May, 2009 on completion of the cotton procurement season for the year 2008-2009. It was petitioners’ grievance that after their discharge, the respondent-employer had engaged several persons like Kadam, Waykar, Mange etc., as mentioned in Annexure G-1, as watchmen for the stocks. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this is simply a sample order and there are several other orders whereby other watchmen were engaged. 2 3. The petitioners filed complaint before the learned Judge, Labour Court and filed an application for interim relief therein. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that as far as petitioners are concerned, their work was over. The respondents had completed the processing of the cotton bales which had been purchased by National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) and for the purpose of protection of bales of NAFED certain watchmen were engaged and this has been clarified even in letter at Annexure G-1 that the employees had been engaged for storage of bales of NAFED. Thus, it is not that the work with the respondent continues or at least at prima-facie stage it cannot be said that the learned Judge, Labour Court or learned Member, Industrial Court were unjustified in taking such a view. 4. In view of this, refusal of interim relief need not be interfered with by exercising writ jurisdiction by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Needless to mention that considering the nature of seasonal employment, the learned Judge, Labour Court would expedite the hearing of complaint and decide it as early as possible. JUDGE RR.