1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4237 OF 2008 (District Superintendent of Agricultural Officer vs. Yavatmal Zilla Shetmajoor & Vankamgar Union) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4238 OF 2008 (Maharashtra State Agricultural Department & Ors. vs. Yavatmal Zilla Shetmajoor & Vankamgar Union) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4239 OF 2008 (Maharashtra State Agricultural Department & Ors. vs. Yavatmal Zilla Shetmajoor & Vankamgar Union) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 10, 2008. Heard finally with the consent of S/Shri Kankale, Patel and Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the petitioners - employer in respective petitions and Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent in all the petitions. The Industrial Court has by the impugned order dated 16.4.2008, rejected application under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, filed by present respondent. However, it directed the employer to file an undertaking that it would confer permanency upon the employee with continuity and other benefits if the employee/ complainant proves his case. The learned AGPs in respective matters 2 contend that as there is no finding of any unfair labour practice by the Industrial Court, such directions could not have been issued. Shri Kadu, learned counsel contends that direction is only to abide by the provisions of law and no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. He further informs that the matter is already fixed for evidence by the Industrial Court. The perusal of impugned order reveals that the learned Member of Industrial Court has not found any factor in favour of present respondents and it has also not found that any case of unfair practice was prima facie made out. In these circumstances, calling upon the petitioners – employer to furnish undertaking cannot be countenanced. As already mentioned above, the undertaking called for is that the employer would confer benefit of permanency with continuity and other benefits if ultimately on merits the employee (complainant before the Industrial Court) proves his case. It is clear that if the present respondent proves the case on merits before the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court is duty bound to give appropriate relief to such an employee and the petitioner – employer is also duty bound to implement the same, 3 subject to its right to challenge the same further. In the present circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent – complainant were all temporary employees and their recruitment was not through any recognized mode. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the controversy as the act of Industrial Court in calling upon the employer to furnish undertaking cannot be sustained. The petitioners are always under obligation to act as per the directions of the Courts of law and therefore, such an undertaking was not at all necessary. The complaints in which the direction has been issued are of the year 1995. The complaints are, therefore, expedited. Industrial Court to decide the complaints as early as possible and in any case by 30.03.2009. Writ Petitions are partly allowed and direction calling upon the petitioners – employer to furnish undertaking is accordingly quashed. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.