IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3158 OF 2009 The Shivaji University, Kolhapur ...Petitioner Vs. Namdev Mahadev Naik & Ors. .. Respondents --- Shri Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for Petitioner Shri N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondents ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 22ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. The Respondents filed a complaint under section MRTU & PULP Act and also an application has been filed at Exhibit U-2 under section 30(2) of the said Act, claiming certain reliefs till pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint. They are also seeking a direction that the Petitioner herein should not terminate the services of the Complainants during the pendency of the complaint and fill up the posts of Vigilance Assistants mentioned in the written statement till the decision of the main complaint. 3. The grievance of the Respondents in the complaint is that the Petitioner herein had published an advertisement dated 9.11.2006 in the newspaper for filling up the posts of security guards by overlooking the claim of the Complainants, who worked continuously for two years as Vigilance Assistants. It was, therefore, prayed that the Petitioner herein may pleased be restrained from filling up 8 posts of security guards mentioned in the written statement till the decision of the complaint. 4. The Industrial Court had partly allowed the interim relief application and directed the Petitioner herein to consider the cases of six complainants on priority basis since they have already been called for interview for regular appointment. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the Industrial court to have given a direction to the Petitioner herein to consider the cases of six complainants on priority basis. He submitted that already interviews had been taken and, therefore, there was no need to give a direction to the Petitioner to decide the case of the Complainant on priority basis. 6. In my view, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is devoid of merits. The Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner herein to consider the cases of six complainants on an urgent basis after giving weightage for their experience gained by them on the said posts. No direction has been given by the Industrial Court to appoint these complainants as prayed by them in their application. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Industrial Court. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the said relief and direction given by the Industrial Court. If the case of these Complainants is not considered by the Petitioner herein, their complaint to a large extent will become infructuous. It is always open for the Petitioner to decide the case on merits and in accordance with law. 7. The petition is dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.