1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1526 OF 2010 *** Shridhar S/o Vithalrao Ganjre Versus Aurangabad District Cooperative Milk Producer's Union Ltd., Aurangabad *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Petitioner is complainant before the learned Judge, Labour Court. Petitioner has filed Complaint (ULP) No.74 of 2008. Said complaint is pending in the Court of learned Judge, Labour Court at Aurangabad. Complaint has been followed by application below Exhibit u-2, under section 30 (2) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. Complainant has been terminated on 28th July, 2008. By way of interim relief, prayer is made for staying the said order of termination and reinstatement of the complainant in service till the disposal of the main complaint, pending before the learned Judge, Labour Court. This application, after hearing the parties, is rejected by the learned Judge, Labour Court. Accordingly order was passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, on 19th March, 2009. In para 15 of 5the order, learned Judge of the Labour Court has referred to a judgment in the case of Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. & 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Others Vs. Industrial Court reported in 2001 (3) MHJ 320. The trial Court opines that complainant failed to establish any extraordinary circumstance which can be considered by the Court. He recorded a finding that prima facie there is no case in favour of the petitioner/ complainant. This order was challenged by filing revision before the Revisional Authority. It was registered as Revision (ULP) No. 31 of 2009. After hearing the parties, this revision has been dismissed by the order passed on 11th September, 2009. The learned Revisional Court directed expeditious hearing of the complaint itself. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially four charges were made against the present petitioner/ complainant. During the inquiry, two more charges were also alleged. According to him, opportunity of being heard was not given to the Petitioner. Amount of advance, granted to the employees of the Respondent, has been recovered from their salary. According to him, there is sufficient material on record to grant relief in favour of the petitioner as prayed for. He concludes that the order passed by both the Courts below are perverse. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 3. Main complaint, filed by the complainant is pending. From para 11 of the order passed by learned Revisional Court, it appears that observation is made regarding proper opportunity of being heard afforded to the present Petitioner. The learned Revisional Court has also observed that the Petitioner was under suspension from 21st May, 2007, for the relief of reinstatement, at this stage, the Revisional Court opined that no such case is established. 4. I see no ground to interfere in extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage. 5. Writ petition stands dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:12/03/2010. ans/1526