1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION NO.5030/2008 [Vinod More ..vs.. Mahindra & Mahindra] WRIT PETITIONNO.5031/2008[Padmakar Gabhane..vs.. Mahindra & Mahindra] WRIT PETITION NO. 5033/2008 [Pravin Varhade ..vs.. Mahindra & Mahindra] WRIT PETITION NO. 5034/2008 [Dilip Bhilkar ..vs.. Mahindra & Mahindra] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 1 st APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri Mohokar, Advocate for petitioners and Shri Puranik, Advocate for respondents. Since the identical relief is sought in all four petitions, same are disposed of by this common order. Notice was issued before admission. The petitioners claimed following reliefs: “(i) by issuing the appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside impugned order dated 13.11.2008 (Annex.V) passed below Exh.2 in Complaint ULPA No.329/2008 by industrial court, Nagpur; 2 (ii) by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, grant interim relief during the pendency of complaint ULPA No.329/2008 as prayed below Exh.2, in the interest of justice; (iii) by an interim order continued ad-interim order dated 13.11.2008 (Annex.VI) passed in complaint ULPA No.329/2008 by Industrial Court, Nagpur, during the pendency of present petition; (iv) grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.” The order under challenge of the Industrial Court, Nagpur , is the order by which the prayer for interim relief of the petitioners was rejected. Petitioner had moved the Industrial Court for benefit of permanency in the employment claiming that they had completed 240 days service in the respondent establishment. In the said complaint, the petitioner had claimed interim relief which was rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that they are terminated. However, the respondents have engaged the other workers in the name of apprentice and they 3 are performing the same work like employees. According to him, they are still continued, whereas the petitioners were not given work. By complaint they had claimed permanency as well as work. According to the petitioners, in view of the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.159/2006 Mahindra & Mahindra ..vs.. Prashant Patil. Petitioners are entitled to claim the interim relief. As against that learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the persons who are stated to be apprentice, have been recommended by the Adviser under the Apprentice Act and therefore, their work can not be equated with the work of the petitioners and petitioners can not be said to be entitled for interim relief as it was prayed before the Industrial Court. According to him, the petitions are also not maintainable. More so, because early hearing of the petitioners' complaints has been ordered by the Industrial Court itself.. I have considered the facts and 4 circumstances of the case. The Industrial Court, while passing the order of rejecting the interim relief, to the petitioners; has observed that whenever vacancies arise if the work is available, respondents shall strictly follow the provisions of Standing Orders by providing work to the complainant as per seniority . He further ordered that matter be proceeded further and be expedited on cooperation of the parties. Facts that are emerged; are that the work provided to the apprentice appears to have been provided on the recommendation of the adviser under the Apprentice Act. It is also informed that the stipend paid to the apprentice is less than the wages which were being paid to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is difficult to find fault with the order impugned in this petition, passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur. In fact it has been ordered that whenever the work is available for the petitioners/ complainants therein, the same would be 5 provided as per the seniority. The implication of the order can not mean to extend the inference that the apprentice are provided with the work, which was being provided to the petitioner like any employee. In these circumstances, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order in the petition. The same is dismissed. However, it is expected that the Industrial Court shall decide the complaints of the petitioners as early as possible and in any case within a period of 6 months. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE SMP