-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3116 OF 2008 Reliance Energy Limited ...Petitioner versus Rashtrawadi Kamgar Sangh and others ... Respondents Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K.P. Anilkumar, for the petitioner. Mr. Arshad Shaikh with Mr. Piyush Shah for respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Talsania, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amol B. Desai, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 09, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Presiding Officer, In-charge 12th Labour Court at Mumbai, by which the Labour Court has passed interim order in favour of respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court has committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in passing the impugned interlocutory order. During the course of hearing, it is also pointed out that the aforesaid interim order is challenged by way of revision by respondent No.1 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai being Revision -2- Application (ULP) No. 62 of 2008. The Industrial Court rejected the prayer for granting interim stay against the order of the Labour Court passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2007. The petitioner company has, therefore, filed this petition challenging the original order of the Labour Court granting interim relief. 2. Heard Mr. Cama, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Arshad Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. Talsania, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2-contractor. In my view, when the revision application against the order of the Labour Court is already pending before the Industrial Court at Mumbai. Instead of entertaining this petition at this stage, it would be just and proper to direct the Industrial Court, Mumbai, to dispose of Revision Application (ULP) No. 62 of 2008, latest by 31st July, 2008, without any further delay. It is commonly agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that their respective clients and the advocates in-charge of the matter before the Revisional Court shall not ask for any adjournment with a view to see that the revision application is disposed of within the stipulated period. 3. The Industrial Court is directed to dispose of Revision Application (ULP) No. 62 of 2008 by the aforesaid date. At the time of deciding the revision application, Industrial Court may not take into account the -3- observations made by it in the impugned order while deciding the application for stay. The learned counsel for the first respondent has fairly stated that till the revision is decided, the first respondent shall not proceed with the criminal complaint filed before the Labour Court being Misc. Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 45 of 2008. In view of the said statement, the Labour Court shall not proceed with the said proceedings till 5th August, 2008. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue and it is for the Revisional Court to decide the revision as per law as it deem fit. It is further clarified that the statement made by the learned counsel for first respondent is only for the purpose of deciding the revision application finally and till such decision, respondent No.1 has shown its willingness not to proceed with the criminal complaint. During the course of hearing it is also pointed by the counsel appearing for the second respondent-contractor that the second respondent has also filed revision application being Revision Application (ULP) No. 68 of 2008. The said revision application may also be disposed of along with the revision application filed by the first respondent. This order is passed in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties and their advocates. 4. Writ petition is disposed of in view of the above terms. 5. The Registry is directed to send the writ of this order to the -4- Industrial Court forthwith so that the revision applications are decided within the stipulated time. It will be open to the concerned advocates also to point out the authenticated copy/certified copy of the order so that the matter is taken up for hearing within the stipulated time. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.