Vaibhav Diliprao Kalaskar v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati

1 / 3 19-WP 1997.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 OF 2021 Vaibhav Diliprao Kalaskar vs.

Chief Executive Officer, Z. P. Amravati ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.

CORAM :

MANISH PITALE J.

DATE :

17th JUNE, 2021 Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 01/03/2021 passed by the Labour Court, Amravati in a Reference proceeding pending before it.

4.

By the said order an application for interim relief filed by the petitioner was rejected. The service

2 / 3 19-WP 1997.21 of the petitioner was terminated as far back on 24/12/2014 primarily on the ground that an offence had been registered against him under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Lateron the petitioner stood acquitted and on this basis, he sought reinstatement in service. In such Reference proceeding, the said application for interim relief was moved by the petitioner for being reinstated during pendency of the matter before the Labour Court. 5.

In the impugned order, the Labour Court has observed that allowing the application of the petitioner would amount to granting final relief at interim stage and that therefore, the application did not deserve to be granted.

6.

This Court has perused the contents of the writ petition and the documents filed therewith. The facts of the present case demonstrate that the Labour Court is justified in reaching the conclusion that allowing the application of the petitioner would amount to granting final relief at interim stage. Therefore, no error is found in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

3 / 3 19-WP 1997.21 7.

Yet, it would be in the interest of justice that the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the Reference proceeding as expeditiously as possible, considering the fact that the petitioner has been out of service since the year 2014. The Labour Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the Reference proceeding within a period of four months from today.

JUDGE