(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2010 Purnavadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit Beed, Subhash Road, Beed, Through Branch Manager, Pradumna Anantrao Khoptikar, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus Vidydhar s/o. Vishwanathrao Vaidya, Age : Major, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Sahyog Nagar, Near Niwara Building, Beed, Taluka and District : Beed. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ (2) CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 30TH MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By consent, the Writ Petition can be finally disposed of. 3. The respondent, Vidyadhar, was employed with the Bank as a Clerk. In an embezzlement of Rs. 60,105/-, occasioned in the Bank, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The respondent, Vidyadhar, was found guilty. He challenged the same. Even in criminal prosecution, he was acquitted. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, Jalna, on 16-12-2009, decided the Complaint (ULP) No. 85/2002 in favour of respondent, Vidyadhar. The Bank challenged the same in Revision (ULP) No. 4/2010, dated 8th January 2010, before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, and urged the learned Judge to favour with an interim stay against the respondent, Vidyadhar. However, the learned Judge decided at interim stage against the Bank and consequently the Writ Petition. (3) 4. In fact, the colour of process should not have been analyzed in depth, as has been done. Needless to add, the learned Judge shall not be influenced with his observations while dealing with the main petition / revision. The revision can be disposed of, since short question is involved, within time frame. Both the learned Counsel agree to cooperate the learned Judge in such exercise. 5. Consequently, without disturbing the order of the learned Judge, the learned Judge will endeavour to dispose of the revision pending before him up to 30th May 2010. Till such decision, the respondent, Vidyadhar, shall not join duties with the Bank. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1113