D D JAGDALE Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels for both the sides in these three writ petitions. Rule, in all the three petitions.

(2.) SO far as the interim relief is concerned, in all the above three petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, Pune denying the interim reliefs to the petitioners. I have been pointed out the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17th September, 1997 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 1997 in W. P. No. 4066 of 1997. By that order the Division Bench, by an interim order, directed the respondent No. 1 not to terminate the employment of the Appellants before the Division Bench, till the Industrial Court decides the complaints filed by the Appellants and the Industrial Court has been directed to expedite the hearing of the matters and dispose them of on or before 31st December, 1997. I have also been pointed out the order of the Supreme Court dated 17th November, 1997 passed in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20885 of 1997. The Supreme Court has declined to grant leave in a petition filed by the respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 1997, challenging the order of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, dated 17. 9. 1997.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Dr. Chandrachud urged that the petitioners in the present petitions and the appellants before the Division Bench, are identically situated. He pointed out that the application for interim relief filed by the petitioners has been rejected for the reasons that were disclosed in the order of the Industrial Court, which was ultimately challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 1997 before the Division Bench. He submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners and the appellants, in the Letters Patent Appeal are identically situated, the petitioners are entitled to the same interim relief, which was granted by the Division Bench in favour of the appellants before it.