Vitthal vs M.S.R.T.C. Divisional Office
2010 Latest Caselaw 219 Bom

                                                       1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                             
                                                     
                        WRIT PETITION NO.3961/2010




                                                    
    Vitthal s/o Nagorao Chapote
    Age 60 years, Occ-Nil
    R/o N.D.CIDCO, New Nanded,
    Tq. & Dist.Nanded.                                 ... PETITIONER




                                          
                                                       [ORIG.APPLICANT]


                        VERSUS
                             
    Divisional Controller
                            
    M.S.R.T.C. Divisional Office,
    Nanded, Tq. & Dist.Nanded.                         ... RESPONDENT
                                                       [ORIG.RESPONDENT]
        


                                    ....
     



                        WRIT PETITION NO.3962/2010. 





    Vitthal s/o Nagorao Chapote
    Age 60 years, Occ-Nil
    R/o N.D.CIDCO, New Nanded,
    Tq. & Dist.Nanded.                                 ... PETITIONER





                                                       [ORIG.APPLICANT]


                        VERSUS


    Divisional Controller
    M.S.R.T.C. Divisional Office,
    Nanded, Tq. & Dist.Nanded.                         ... RESPONDENT
                                                       [ORIG.RESPONDENT]




                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:39:34 :::
                                                     2




                                  ...




                                                                           
    Shri R.P.Deshpande,Adv.for petitioners.




                                                   
    Shri B.S.Deshmukh,Adv.for Respdt.
                                       ....

                                  CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J.

                                  DATE :    29/11/2010.




                                         
    ORAL JUDGMENT :
                            
    1]    Rule.   Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
                           
    by consent.


    2]    By order dated 17/8/2010, two weeks time was granted to
       

file the terms/minutes of the order which was filed before the Industrial Court, Jalna. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has now placed on record certified copy of the purshis of settlement.

3] It is surprising to note that inspite of the settlement purshis dated 14/10/09 being on record, the Industrial Court,Jalna, has passed the impugned order on 2/11/2009 on merits. The impugned order therefore, deserves to be set

aside and is accordingly set aside.

4] The learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the settlement purshis was infact signed and filed in Industrial Court, he however, objects to any reliefs being granted against the respondents in the above petitions. The objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is stated merely to be rejected in view of the settlement

purshis which has admittedly been signed by the parties and which was placed on record of the Industrial Court.

5] In the circumstances, the certified copy of the

settlement purshis dated 14/10/2009 is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification and the Writ Petitions are disposed of and rule made absolute in terms of the

settlement purshis dated 14.10.2009. No order as to costs.

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

umg/wp3961-10