1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3123 OF 2008 Sudhakar Ganpatrao Alandkar .. PETITIONER VERSUS Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for the State. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18 th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Petitioner – employee presented complaint ULP no. 42/1997 against the respondent – co-operative society agitating his grievance in respect of unfair labour practice by the employer. Complaint was considered by the learned Judge of the labour court and it was held that the employer has indulged in commission of unfair labour practice. The court while allowing 2 the complaint directed re-instatement of the complainant. However, it was held that the complainant was not entitled for backwages. It transpires on perusal of the record that during the pendency of proceeding before the labour court, liquidation proceeding was initiated against respondent / co- operative society. Although it is noted in the judgment that application was made for seeking permission to proceed against the liquidator, however, no such permission was accorded by the Registrar, co-operative societies. Complaint thus was proceeded without mandatory permission from the Registrar. Considering this aspect of the matter, the revisional court while considering the revision application quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Judge of the labour court and said order passed by the industrial court while entertaining the revision application by the respondent is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 The liquidator has filed pursis informing that liquidation proceedings are already over and final report is submitted alongwith recommendations on 9-5-2008 and the Registrar, co-operative societies has directed de- registration of the society and thereby has appointed official assignee. Thus, it transpires that the society is already de-registered. The official assignee is only to deal with the existing claims. Considering all these aspects, no 3 interference is called for in writ petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefor stands rejected summarily. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp3123.08.odt