AMINKHA MUSAKHAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) It appears that the complaint that was filed by the petitioner with others was dismissed since the complainant including the petitioner were absent on 29-7-2003. Initially, on 27-2-1996, the Industrial Court had made an order not to discontinue services of those complainants including the petitioner. After dismissal of the said complaint, the petitioner approached this Court as late as on 5-9-2006 and also obtained interim order on 5-9-2006 to the effect that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall not appoint any casual or daily wage or temporary employee on the post held by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Advocate Shri. Gordey for petitioner states that instead of approaching the industrial Court for restoration of his complaint, which was dismissed in his absence, he approached this Court, since according to him there is no provision under the M. R. T. U. and p. U. L. P. Act for applying for restoration of the complaint. He then submitted that the petitioner is working since 1987 and even now he has been given the appointment order. He is, thus, in employment.