1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8719 OF 2009. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and another ... Petitioners. Versus Dilip Manga Choudhari ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 26.02.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard counsel. 2. The Respondent is employed with the petitioner federation. There were certain charges of misconduct, dereliction of duty etc. 2 levelled against him. The petitioner, therefore, commenced Disciplinary Inquiry. The Disciplinary Inquiry was concluded. When a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent, he approached the Labour Court, alleging that unfair labour practice was being adopted by the petitioner by denying him due opportunity to explain his stand inasmuch as the inquiry report was not made available to him. The learned Judge of the Labour Court by order dated 3.6.2009 restrained the petitioner from passing punishment by way of termination of the Respondent until disposal of the complaint (ULP) No.3/2009. This interim order of the Labour Court was challenged before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon by way of Revision Application (ULP) No.8/2009. The Revision Application came to be dismissed with direction to proceed with the complaint case and decide the same within three (3)months vide order dated 10.11.2009. The fact remains, however, that the said complaint (ULP) No.3/2009 is still pending for inquiry. 3. The impact of such interim order is 3 that the Disciplinary Inquiry is stalled at the fag end after completing the necessary procedure. Mr.Thombre, learned advocate makes a statement that inquiry report is furnished to the Respondent during pendency of the complaint filed by him before the Labour Court. Mr.Patil S. S. counsel for the Respondent states that copy of the inquiry report was furnished in the Labour Court, during proceedings. Be that may as it is, since the copy of inquiry report is furnished, now the Respondent can not say that there was denial of opportunity to answer the charges. In this view of the matter, the interim relief is not required to be continued and both the impugned orders must go. 4. Considering further development as noted above, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner is, however, directed to issue final order in the Disciplinary Inquiry after giving effect to any adverse order, if so rendered, by leaving two (2) weeks period. In other words, if the Respondent is to be terminated or removed from service then 4 the effect of such order shall be suspended for two (2) weeks vide the order which is to be rendered in order to facilitate the Respondent to pursue legal remedy as may be available. The Labour Court may decide the issue regarding legality of such termination on its own merits without being influenced by any order of this Court and that the interim relief only is hereby declamped. The Respondent is at liberty to file his reply to the show cause notice within a period of two (2) weeks as is required. The petition disposed of. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp871909