Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra State ... vs Sheikh Ishaq Bashir on 23 March, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 230316wp4498.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4498 OF 2015
THE MAH. STATE COOP. TRIBAL DEVPT. CORPORATION, NASHIK AND OTHERS.
VERSUS
SHEIKH ISHAQ BASHIR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. V. Samarth, Advocate for the petitioners.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : MARCH 23, 2016.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The submission of the learned counsel in challenge
to the order impugned in the petition, passed by the
learned Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur, is two
fold. Firstly, he submitted that the respondent had filed a
complaint in the year 2012 raising the very grounds,
which were raised in the complaint filed in the year 2007.
He submits that the petitioners have replied the complaint
of the year 2012 and in the written statement this specific
ground was raised that initially the complaint was filed by
the respondent and the same is pending before the
Industrial Court. The learned counsel then by inviting my
attention to the copy of the order passed by the Industrial
Court, dated 01.03.2012 in the complaint filed in the year
2007, submitted that the complaint was dismissed for
default. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that
the respondent was an employee appointed purely on
temporary basis and in view of the Government Circular,
2 230316wp4498.15.odt
dated 25.08.2005, such temporary appointments could
not have the benefit of permanency. The Circular is
issued by the Government in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned counsel then submitted
that the Industrial Court has failed to appreciate all these
aspects and allowed the Complaint ULP No. 05/2012 by
the impugned order dated 27.10.2014, thereby granting
permanency to the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the respondent is still in the service of the petitioners and
prays for ad-interim order in the nature of stay to clause 3
of the impugned order dated 27.10.2014.
The learned counsel further submits that after filing
of the petition, it was informed to the counsel that the
respondent has approached the Labour Court, Chandrapur
seeking criminal action in Criminal ULP No.13/2015 and
seeks ad-interim stay to the said proceedings. The learned
counsel submits that if the petitioners are not protected by
the interim orders, serious prejudice would be caused to
them.
The learned counsel, therefore, orally prays for
amendment to the petition by adding said fact as well as
raising additional prayer in the petition to that effect.
The oral prayer of the petitioner for amendment is
granted.
Necessary amendment be carried out within a
period of one week.
3 230316wp4498.15.odt
Considering the limited controversy involved in the
petition and on carrying out necessary amendment, issue
notice of final disposal to the respondent, returnable
after six weeks.
Ad-interim stay to clause (3) of the impugned order
dated 27.10.2014 so also to the proceedings in Criminal
ULP No. 13/2015, till the returnable date.
ig JUDGE
Diwale
