Wp1420.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1420 OF 2010 Chief Executive Officer, Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. ....Petitioners. Vs. Shri Arvind Baddusingh Chavan ....Respondent. Mr. S.S. pakale i/by Mr. Kirankumar Phakade for the Petitioners. Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 9th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 The Petitioner-Management has challenged the interlocutory order dated 16th January, 2010, whereby, the Industrial Court, Nashik pending the main complaint arising out of transfer proceedings with regard to Respondent No.1, granted ad-interim relief on 21/10/2009 and on 16th January, 2010 confirmed the same. 2 The main complaint is also directed to proceed expeditiously also on the issue whether the complainant is workman or not and whether the complaint is maintainable or not. 3 The present petition against the said order is dated 15th February, 2010. Today it is listed for the admission and interim order. Till this date, there is no interim order passed by this Court. In the result, an ad-interim Wp1420.10 2 relief, as granted on 21/10/2009 is continued till this date. That resulted into transfer of Respondent No.1. 4 Therefore, without observing anything on the merits of the matter and as there is finding already given on both the aspects; including the finding raising doubt about the maintainability. On merit also the Court after considering the same granted ad-interim relief. 5 Therefore, without observing further, at this stage, I am of the view that to end of justice is served if the complaint itself is disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in view of the preliminary observations, so raised. 6 Therefore, the Industrial Court, Nashik as already observed, is directed to dispose of the complaint preferably within 3 months. However, it is made clear that the liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take appropriate action, in accordance with law and/or as per the service conditions as permissible. 7 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed with above observations, with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)