1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 522 OF 2008 (Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. and another .v. Devidas Uttamrao Gawande) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri C.V. Kale, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 03RD MARCH, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 9th January, 2008 vide which the application filed by the respondent under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act has been allowed. The respondent has filed a complaint challenging the discontinuation of his services with effect from 7th June, 2007. In the said complaint, an application for interim relief was filed. The same was rejected. Against that, a revision was also preferred by the present respondent. The respondent also filed another complaint before the learned Industrial Court vide Complaint (ULP) No.1/2008 thereby alleging the violation of Clause 2 9 Schedule – IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The allegation of the complainant is that as per the recommendations of the Bhuibhar Committee, at least six months' work be provided to the seasonal employees. It is alleged that instead of engaging the services of complainant, the present petitioners have given an advertisement for engaging the services of Watchman on contract basis. In the said complaint, an application for interim relief is filed. The same is allowed. Hence the present petition. Shri C.V. Kale, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the reliance placed by the learned Industrial Court on the recommendations of the Bhuibhar Committee is totally unwarranted. He submits that the said recommendations are not applicable to the Watchman and are applicable only to Clerks. Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant, on the contrary, submits that the learned Industrial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and, therefore, no interference is warranted. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial Court has observed that the private agencies have been deployed by the present petitioners for the work of Watchman. Since the services of the 3 private workman are being employed by the petitioners, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Since the present petition arises out of purely interlocutory order, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is however made clear that the respondent would be provided with the work only for the season during which the petitioners would engage the services of the private security agencies. JUDGE *rrg.