1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1533 OF 2003 Thanco Bank Karmachari Sangh. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Kalwa Belapur Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. L.S. Deshpande i/b. Mr. S.S. Pakale for the Petitioner. Mr. Vishal Bodhe i/b. Mr. P.N. Patil for the Respondent. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 22, 2008. P.C.: The order impugned herein is an interlocutory order dated 18th November 2002 passed by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) 364 of 2002. The Industrial Court has held that prima facie, the complaint was not maintainable on the ground that once liquidation proceedings had commenced and the Liquidator had been appointed, no proceedings could be instituted against the First Respondent, which is a Co-operative Bank, without the permission of the Registrar by virtue of the provisions of Section 107 of the 2 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies' Act, 1960. Secondly, it has been held that even on merits the question as to whether there was a settlement dated 10th August 2002, raised a serious triable issue since it was the contention of the Bank that there was no genuine settlement. The contention of the Bank is that on 10th August 2002 when a settlement was alleged to have been entered into, the Reserve Bank of India had cancelled the licence of the Bank. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is unable to state before the Court as to whether the main complaint has already been disposed of having regard to the fact that a period in excess of five years has elapsed since the passing of the interlocutory order im;pugned in these proceedings. Interim relief was refused when the petition was admitted on 19th June 2003. For the purposes of these proceedings, it is not necessary to enter any final decision in regard to the first question which has been decided by the impugned order particularly since those observations are confined to the disposal of the application for interim relief. On the merits of the case, the Industrial Court has furnished reasons for declining interim relief. At 3 this stage, when no interim relief has held the field since 18th November 2002, the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the Industrial Court to dispose of the pending complaint unless it has already been disposed of. No interference is warranted with the interlocutory order of the Industrial Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ......