1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4696 OF 2009 Shri Dilip Mahadev Gaikwad & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs Mira Bhayandar Mahanagar Palika & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.S.S.Sayyed for the petitioners. Mr.A.K.Jalisatgi & Ms.Navneet Chahal for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.Mayuresh Modgi for the respondent nos.5 to 11. Ms.A.D.Vhatkar AGP for the respondent no.3. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 8th December, 2009. PC 1 By this petition the petitioners who are working as junior clerks for several years with respondent no.1 seek to challenge an order dated 30.8.2000 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in a complaint ULP No.647 of 1997. They were admittedly not parties to the said complaint. They contend that the order passed in the said complaint affects their future chances of promotion to the post of senior clerks because there are observations in the impugned order that the required qualification for the post is SSC plus LSJD. It is an admitted position that subsequently the present petitioners had filed a separate complaint bearing complaint ULP No.281 of 2003 before the Industrial Court, Thane making a 2 grievance against their non promotion but that complaint came to be dismissed on 4.2.2006. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said complaint they have filed Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.2507 of 2007 in this court and that writ petition has been admitted on 25.4.2007. The record indicates that in the pending petition the petitioners sought to take out Civil Application bearing Civil Application No.18 of 2009 for amendment of the petition, incorporating a challenge to the Industrial Court order dated 30.8.2000. That Civil Application was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 12.10.2009 with liberty to file a fresh petition. 2 After hearing both sides, however, I find that this petition is not required to be entertained because the contention raised in Writ Petition No.2507 of 2007 cannot be limited by the impugned order of the Industrial Court in a complaint to which they were not parties. They were entitled to take independent proceedings for agitating their own rights. The impugned order will also not be binding on this court. The impugned order was also challenged by the respondent no.1-corporation by filing a separate writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.5671/2000 but though the said writ petition was admitted on merits, respondent no.1 was chosen to withdraw that petition. Respondent no.1 is still at liberty to make their stand clear in Writ Petition No.2507 of 2007. In view of this clarification, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Petition therefore stands dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4