1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5353 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.07.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant who had filed complaint (ULP) against the illegal termination. The same came to be allowed vide order dated 29.9.2010 by the Labour Court. The petitioner was reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. The present Respondents preferred Revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Revision and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for giving opportunity to the present Respondents to adduce evidence. The original complainant has assailed the said order 2 in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Surwase, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Respondents were negligent in prosecuting the matter. The advocate had filed no instructions Purshis, still, he remains as an advocate and the advocate who had filed No instructions Purshis before the Labour Court himself preferred Revision on behalf of the Respondents before the Industrial Court. All these factors go to show that the reasons stated by the Respondents are not bonafide and their intention was only to protract the matter. Even the settlement was arrived at and settlement Purshis was filed but Respondents subsequently did not turn up to sign the same. The Industrial Court has erroneously allowed the Revision and remitted the matter. The petitioner has rendered 27 years of service. The order of reinstatement passed has been set aside. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment. It appears that the advocate of the Respondents had filed no instructions purshis but there is nothing on record 3 to show that the Respondents were given notice prior to filing of No instructions purshis or was intimated about the said fact. 5. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter, I do not find any illegality committed while remanding the matter. If the parties have filed proposal for settlement, the same can be executed even after the matter is remanded. 6. In light of above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Taking into account the fact that the present Petitioner is litigating since 2007, the Labour Court shall decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four (4) months from today. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.21.07.2011. asp/office/wp5353.11 4