Advocates:
['SHRI INDRAJEET R KULKARNI', 'DEVENDRANATH JOSHI', 'SHRI RAHUL D OAK', '', 'SHRI M V JOGLEKAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 1908 OF 200

WRIT PETITION NO. 1908 OF 200

WRIT PETITION NO. 1908 OF 2007

Anil Prabhakar Samant.... Petitioner

versus

M/s. Hindal Co. Industries Ltd. & Ors.... Respondent.

Shri I.R.Kulkarni for the petitioner.

Shri P.N.Anavkar with Rahul Oak for Respondent no.1.

CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED; 21ST MARCH, 2007

DATED; 21ST MARCH, 2007

DATED; 21ST MARCH, 2007

P.C.;

P.C.;

P.C.;

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner questions

the legality and validity of the interlocatory order

passed by the Industrial court in revision, which in

turn,confirms the order passed by the labour court

rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for

interim relief.

2. The petitioner was charge sheeted for

insubordination and an enquiry was inititated. When

the departmental enquiry was in half way the

petitioner filed a complaint under section 28 of the

MRTP & PULP Act and therein moved an application

under section 30(2) of the said Act seeking to

restrain

the respondent from terminating the services of the

complaint, pursuant to a show cause notice dated

8-9-2006. The labour court and the industrial court

have on appreciation of facts declined the prayer for

interim relief and it is this interlocatory order,

which is challenged in the present writ petition.

3. Perused the orders passed. No interference is

called for. However, it is made clear that it shall

be open for the petitioner to question the legality or

otherwise of the order of punishment which the

respondent may issue pursuant to the show cause

notice. As and when the petitioner questions the

correctness of the order of punishment, the court

below shall proceed to consider the same uninfluenced

by the observations made in the impugned order for the

reason that the impugned orders are passed on

primafacie consideration of the material. It is

further made clear that if the petitioner proposes to

challenge the order of punishment, by amending the

present complaint, he is permitted to do so, by making

appropriate application before the labour court. The

learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in

this regard. Writ petition is therefore summarily

dismissed.

....