1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3102 OF 2008 Satish Tukaram Pawar ..Petitioner. Vs. Director General, Health Services and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 2nd May, 2008. P.C. : Both the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court have declined to grant interim relief, protecting the services of the Petitioner pending the disposal of the complaint of unfair labour practices on the ground that the Petitioner was appointed purely in a temporary capacity and without recourse to the regular procedure for selection. The approach of the Courts below cannot be held to suffer from any infirmity and the Petitioner cannot have any vested right to continue having regard to the nature of the appointment. A stray admission in the course of the cross-examination cannot be made the sole basis in the face of the documentary material which is prima facie available on the record to demonstrate that the 2 appointment was temporary in nature. In the circumstances, no case for interference has been made out. However, this shall not preclude the concerned authorities from considering the claim of the Petitioner for continuation of a temporary appointment in the event that the post is sought to be filled up by a temporary appointment. Subject to the aforesaid, the Petition shall stand disposed of. 2. The Labour Court may consider expediting the complaint which is pending since 2002 and to fix a time schedule for an expeditious disposal. It is clarified that the complaint shall be finally disposed of on merits and the observations contained in this order shall only be regarded as confined to the disposal of the application for interim relief. *****