Shri Janardhan S/O Dina Jadhav v. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Yavatmal Circle, Yavatmal

0407wp5408+3.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5408 OF 2015 Mohan Bhaurao Devkate Vs. Chief Conservator of Forest Yavatmal WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5405 OF 2015 Vishnu Ashruji Jatale Vs. Chief Conservator of Forest Yavatmal WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5406 OF 2015 Janardhan Dina Jadhav Vs. Chief Conservator of Forest Yavatmal WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5407 OF 2015 Dnyaneshwar Chandrabhan Bunde Vs. Chief Conservator of Forect Yavatmal ....................................................................................................................................................................... .

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri S. Pathak Adv for petitioner.

Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari AGP for respondent.

CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.

DATED: 4th JULY, 2016.

Since identical issues arise in these writ petitions they are being decided by this common order.

The petitioner in each writ petition is employed with Forest Department. The services of each petitioner came to be transferred and being aggrieved each petitioner filed separate complaints under the provisions of Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In these complaints a prayer for interim relief was made but the Industrial Court refused to grant the said relief. Being

0407wp5408+3.15 aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court. Shri S. Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that each of the petitioner has joined his respective place of posting. He submits that there is some dispute in the matter of receiving salary after passing of the order of transfer. He submits that in this situation if the proceedings before the Industrial Court are expedited the same would serve the ends of justice. Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent does not dispute that each of the petitioner has joined at the place of posting.

In these facts when Industrial Court refused to grant any interim relief and the petitioner has now joined the place of posting, the writ petitions can be disposed of by directing the Industrial Court to expeditiously decide the complaints filed by the petitioners. Accordingly the Industrial Court shall decide the complaints filed by each petitioner expeditiously and within a period of six months from today. It would be open for the complainants to make a grievance with regard to non-payment of salary for the period after passing of the transfer order. The points raised in the writ petition are kept open. The writ petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

JUDGE svk