1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3326 OF 2011 Shrikrishna Marotrao Bondade. Vs. Spentex Industries Ltd. .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................... Mr. DCR Mishra, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.G. Zinjarde, Adv. For respondent -sole CORAM : R. M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 14th JULY, 2011. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 30.6.2011, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, by which order the Revision Application ULP No. 119/2011 came to be dismissed and resultantly the order of the Labour Court rejecting interim relief to the petitioner came to be confirmed. The petitioner was working in the respondent company as a Doffer for about 14 years. The petitioner was issued charge sheet/suspension order dated 13.11.2009 for the misconduct coming under item 24(L) and 24(A) of the Standing Orders. An enquiry was conducted in respect of the said charges. Thereafter, the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner thereby asking him to give his say about the said report. It is at that stage that the petitioner filed Complaint ULP No.120 of 2010 alleging .....2/- 2 unfair practice against the respondent in the matter of conduct of inquiry under item 1 of Schedule-IV of the MRTU and PULP Act 1971. In the said complaint, the petitioner filed an application under section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act for interim relief. The Labour Court passed an order of status-quo. Ultimately, the said application U/s 30(2) came to be rejected on the ground that there was no illegality in the conduct of the inquiry and that the principles of natural justice were not violated. It appears that though the interim relief application was rejected, the status-quo order was continued so as to enable the petitioner to file a revision application. The petitioner accordingly filed Revision Application no. 119/2011 in the Industrial Court at Nagpur. The said Revision Application also came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court vide judgment and order dated 30.6.2011. The Industrial Court, in the light of the findings of the Labour Court as regard the fairness and legality of the enquiry, did not deem it fit to exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the application for interim relief made by the petitioner under section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act. Having considered the reasons mentioned by both the courts below, in my view, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below in so far as the aspect of denial of interim relief to the petitioner is concerned. .....3/- 3 It is further required to be noted that the order of the Industrial Court is dated 30.6.2011. It appears that the petitioner thereafter had filed the instant petition on 5.7.2011. However, the learned counsel for the respondent company states that pursuant to the inquiry report, the respondent company in furtherance of it had issued the dismissal order on 6.7.2011 and it has been dispatched to the petitioner on the same day. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the same has not yet been received to the petitioner. Be that as it may, it would be for the petitioner to consider whether to uphold the dismissal order or not in the pending proceedings or by filing a fresh proceeding. However, in view of what has been stated above as regards the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Industrial Court, no case for the interim reliefs is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Hirekhan ...../-