Bombay High CourtWP/11695/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Printwell International Private Ltd v. Bhima Laxman Bhalerao

2019-01-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11695 OF 2018 M/S. PRINTWELL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD

VERSUS

BHIMA LAXMAN BHALERAO Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.V. Dankh with Mr. Lalit B. Deshmukh.

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Y.I. Thole with Mr. S.M. Vaidya.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated : 23.01.2019.

PER COURT :

I have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides for some time. I have perused the order passed by this Court (Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J.) dated 24.11.2018.

Learned advocate for the management submits that the respondent has already been reinstated and he is permitted to work. 3.

I find that the Complaint (ULP) No. 60/2013, has already entered the sixth year. An interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court is a subject matter in this petition. No doubt, interim relief in the nature of reinstatement in service cannot be granted as it amounts to a

final relief and nothing would normally survive in the pending complaint, if such final relief is granted at an interim stage. However, as this Court has observed in its order dated 24.11.2018, that the respondent has been reinstated in service, in my view, equities could be balanced by expediting the hearing in the complaint with the observations that no equities would be created in favour of the respondent by the grant of the interim relief. 4.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Labour Court to decide Complaint (ULP) No. 60/2013, as expeditiously as possible and in any case on/or before 31.01.2020. 5.

Needless to state that the grant of interim relief would not create any equities in favour of the respondent and the Labour Court would decide the Complaint on its own merits.

The learned advocates jointly submit that the issue of back wages, pursuant to the impugned interlocutory order dated 28.11.2013, is pending mediation. Learned advocate for the workman submits that he would not press Criminal (ULP) No. 10/2017, till the decision in the ULP Complaint before the Labour Court.

Since the impugned order is an interlocutory order, all issues

need to be left open for the Trial Court to decide including the aspect of back wages. Nevertheless, if the parties mediate and close the issue, it would be a subject matter of their mutual understanding. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) S.P.C.