1 wp-5314-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 5314 OF 2009 Popat Murlidhar Patil ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Motor Industries Co.Ltd. ..Respondent .... Ms.Seema K.Chopda Adv. for Petitioner Mr.P.K.Rele Adv. i/b V.M.Tayade i/b Piyush Shah for Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : 27th JULY , 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard. The petitioner was working as trainee fitter in the employment of respondent no.1. The petitioner came to be terminated. Being aggrieved thereby, he filed Complaint (ULP) No.58 of 1988. The complaint came to be partly allowed. Order of dismissal was set aside. The respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without full back wages. Both the parties were aggrieved by the said order. Hence, revisions came to be preferred by both the parties. Revision was preferred by the petitioner as no back wages 2 wp-5314-09 were granted and the Revision was preferred by the respondent as the petitioner was reinstated in service. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the application for clubbing of both the revisions and that both revisions to be heard expeditiously. This application came to be disposed of by order dated 17th March, 2009. The Industrial Court directed that both the revisions i.e. revisions i.e. Revision Application (ULP) No.57 of 2008 filed by the respondent Company and Revision Application (ULP) No.1 of 2009 filed by the petitioner shall be clubbed together for final disposal, however, grievance of the petitioner is that the next date was given in the month of March, 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was terminated in 1988 and now only four years are left for his retirement. She submitted that the matter ought to have been kept at a short date. Hence, she is seeking that the matter be expedited before the lower Court. Looking to the fact that the petitioner was dismissed in the year 1988 and since then he has been litigating, Industrial Court to take both the matters in the month of November, 2009 and thereafter dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 3. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner preferred an application for interim relief wherein he prayed that the petitioner be paid at par with the other workmen. After considering the said 3 wp-5314-09 application and hearing the necessary parties, the Industrial Court passed the order that “The Order and Judgement passed by the Labour Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No.57 of 1988 on 13.11.2008 is hereby stayed, subject to depositing last drawn wages of the Opponent workman for a period of one year, within a period of one month, which the Opponent workman would be entitled to withdraw the said amount on furnishing the solvent security ”. 4. It is seen that the main matter is pending. The petitioner for the time being has got some relief from the Industrial Court, hence, I am not inclined to interfere with this order dated 20th December, 2008 at this stage and as regards main matter, all the contentions of both the parties are left open. 5. Writ petition is disposed of. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]