: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2248 OF 2010 Chhaya Vitthal Wagh .. Petitioner V/s. Sheth Govindaji Raoji Ayurvedic College / Hospital & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Nayna Buch i/b. Mr. S.K. More for the Petitioner. Mr. Neel G. Helekar for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 21 ST JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 24th February, 2010, passed by the Industrial Court, Pune on the amendment applications filed at Exhibits “U-12” and “U-13” in a Complaint filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”). The petitioner had filed the complaint contending that the enquiry held against her was bad and, therefore, the provisions of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act were attracted. : 2 : 2. It appears that today the enquiry has been completed and a show cause notice has also been issued to the petitioner-employee directing her to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated. That show cause notice has been replied by the petitioner-employee. Admittedly, the petitioner-employee has not been terminated from the services as yet. 3. In my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by considering whether the amendment applications filed at Exhibits “U-12” and “U-13” should be allowed at this stage. The petitioner can always seek relief in terms of the contentions raised in the applications by filing appropriate proceedings before the Labour Court. 4. Ms. Buch, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, states that the petitioner be given liberty to approach the Labour Court within a specific period during which she should not be terminated from the services. : 3 : 5. In my opinion, this is a fair request although Mr. Helekar, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposes this request. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.1-Management not to terminate the services of the petitioner-employee, in case they are so inclined, for a period of two weeks from today. 7. In the event the petitioner approaches the Labour Court for any relief, this order granting her a stay of the termination from service shall not influence the Labour Court while considering whether any interim relief should be granted to the petitioner. 8. All contentions raised by both the parties in the amendment applications filed at Exhibits “U-12” and “U-13” and the present complaint are left open. 9. The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.