1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2091 OF 2008 Maharashtra Nav Nirmal Kamgar Sena. ..Petitioner V/s. The Homeopathic Education Society & Ors...Respondents. Mr.Mahesh Shukla with Mr.Ramprakash Pandey for petitioner. Mr.R.N.Shah with Mr.Piyush Shah for Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 1, 2008. : OCTOBER 1, 2008. : OCTOBER 1, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The only apprehension pressed before this Court on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Respondents were resorting to unilateral closing of some units of the establishment and under that pretext may claim that the staff employed in that unit has become surplus and then resort to termination of the concerned workmen without following due process of law. That apprehension is obviously misplaced having regard to the statement made by the Respondents through Counsel, which is already noted in the Order passed by the lower Court. 3. The Respondents reiterate before this Court 2 that the Respondents shall not resort to closing down of any unit in the establishment without following due process of law. As of now, the Respondents have no intention to close down any unit in the establishment. The Respondents also assure through Counsel before this Court that the Respondents shall not terminate services of any workman on the ground that he has become surplus on account of closing down of any unit in the establishment, which action is without taking prior requisite permission, if required in accordance with the law, of the Competent Authority. Assurance given by the Respondents through Counsel is placed on record and accepted. 4. In view of this position, it is not necessary to examine any other grievance of the Petitioner as of now. All questions are left open to be considered by the lower Court uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned decision while deciding the main complaint. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)