IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 670 OF 200 PETITION NO. 670 OF 200 PETITION NO. 670 OF 2007 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Executive Engineer, Manmad, Dist. Nashik & ors. ....Petitioner versus Kautik Deoram Jagtap ...... Respondent. Shri S.K.Chinchalikar AGP for the petitioner Shri D.S. Matwankar for Respondent. CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; DATED; DATED; 5TH FEBRUARY, 2007 5TH FEBRUARY, 2007 5TH FEBRUARY, 2007 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner had questioned the legality and validity of the interlocatory order passed by the Labour Court, which is confirmed by the Industrial Court by dismissal of revision filed by the petitioners. It appears from the order passed by the Industrial court that the petitioner made a specific statement that the services of the original complinant were not terminated and a proposal was sent to the Government for converting the complainant on C.R.T. Taking support of the said statement and being primafacie found that the case as made out, the Labour court has granted protection of service of the complaint. The order is passed by the Industrial court way back on 29-8-2005. There is no satisfactory explanation about delay in filing of the writ petition. The order is passed by the Labour court sometime in July 2005. By the said order, the complainants are continued in service. 2. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order which is holding field for such a long time and ends of justice would be met by seeking expeditious disposal of the complaint. In the result, the writ petition is summarily dismissed. I hope and trust that the Labour court would decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible. I expect the decision in the complaints within a period of six months from today. ...