1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4426 OF 2009 (The Depot Manager, Mehkar Depot vs. Madhukar Ukanda Late) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 05, 2009. Heard Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner. He invites attention to past service record (Annexure – I) to show several previous instances of absence. He contends that the Labour Court as also Industrial Court, therefore, could not have concluded that the proposed punishment was shockingly disproportionate. He further argues that after receipt of reply thereto, the same would have been considered on merits and appropriate punishment would have been inflicted. However, I find that ULP Complaint in which show cause notice for dismissal has been challenged is of the year 2004 and interim relief granted therein is dated 27.07.2004. Revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, filed against this interlocutory order has been rejected on 24.09.2008, thereafter present writ petition has been filed on 03.07.2009. Considering the period spent, it will not be 2 appropriate to interfere in writ jurisdiction with interlocutory order at this stage. The proceedings in Complaint ULPA No. 632 of 2004 on the file of Labour Court, Buldhana are expedited and the said Court is directed to decide the said complaint as early as possible and in any case by 30th June 2010. It is made clear that the observations made by the Industrial Court in its judgment dated 24th September 2008 or by Labour Court itself in its order below Exh. 2 are prima facie in nature and shall not influence the consideration of controversy on merits. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.