Pravina Ramrao Kulkarni v. Mah State Institute Of Adult Education Through Director Aurangabad

909-WP-2343-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 909 WRIT PETITION NO. 2343 OF 2018 Pravina Ramrao Kulkarni ... Petitioner.

Versus

Maharashtra State Institute of Adult Education State Resource Centre, Through its Director ... Respondent.

....

Mr. Pradeep L. Shahane, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Uday S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent/Sole. ....

CORAM :

V.L. ACHALIYA, J.

DATED : 3rd APRIL, 2018 PER COURT:- 1.

The petitioner herein has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint ULP No.107/2017. By the impugned order, the learned Industrial Court has rejected the application filed at exhibit U-2 seeking interim relief . 2.

Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and respondent. Perused the impugned order.

3.

On due consideration of submissions advanced in the light of reasons recorded by the Industrial Court in refusing to grant

909-WP-2343-2018 interim relief, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order passed by the Industrial Court is reasoned and based upon due appreciation of rival pleadings and evidence in the nature of documents placed before the Court. It is observed that the petitioner was time to time appointed for a fixed tenure on a consolidate pay under the Sakshar Bharat Abhiyan of the Union Government. It is also observed that the petitioner is found to be employed with Abdul Rahim National High School as a teacher for teaching Marathi subject for the year 2016-2017, which, according to the petitioner, is an honorary appointment.

In the backdrop of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the trial Court cannot termed as perverse, arbitrary and non exercise of jurisdiction vested with the trial Court, In this view, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed. However, the Industrial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month. ( V.L.