bsb 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 JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2008 Ashok Namdev Mhatre ... Petitioner v/s 1. Suvarna Mangal Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dombivli (E) & 3 ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.D.Oak for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Jalisatgi with Mr.Satish Hegde for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 1ST AUGUST, 2008 1ST AUGUST, 2008 1ST AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against an order refusing interim relief to him, passed by the Labour Court on 12.10.2007 and confirmed by the Industrial Court on 16.4.2008. The Labour Court was impressed by the fact that no case has been made out by the petitioner since his appointment letter itself had been kept in abeyance. The Labour Court found prima facie that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no need to grant any interim relief. The Industrial Court has concurred with the reasoning given by the Labour Court for refusing the interim relief. 2 2. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order which has been passed by the Industrial Court. Both the Courts below have, for cogent reasons, refused interim relief to the petitioner. It would be appropriate to direct the Labour Court to dispose of the complaint, which has been pending since 2005, as expeditiously as possible. 3. The writ petition is rejected. 4. The Labour Court is, however, directed to dispose of the Complaint (ULP) No.59 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible. 5. The findings of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are obviously prima facie and will not influence the order of the Labour Court at the final hearing of the complaint.