@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.K. Deshmukh, J.@mdashHeard 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.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company on the other-hand submitted that the Division Bench by its order dated 17.9.1997 has observed that the order passed by the Division Bench should not be treated as a precedent for granting interim relief to other employees. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court by its order, referred to above dated 17.11.1997, has also noted that the order of the Division Bench protects only a limited number of employees and therefore, in the submission of the learned counsel, the petitioners would not be entitled to the same interim relief, which is granted in favour of the appellants by the Division Bench.
5. Now in my opinion in the face of the clear interim relief granted by the Division Bench in favour of the identically situated workmen, the petitioners would be definitely entitled to the same interim relief. If one set of the identically situated workmen are being treated in one manner then, in my opinion, the petitioners are also entitled to be treated in the same manner unless there is a distinguishing feature in the face of the Division Bench''s order I see no reason to deny the interim relief to the present petitioners, which has been granted by the Division Bench in favour of the identically situated workmen.
6. In the result, therefore, by way of the interim relief the respondent No. 1 is directed not to terminate the employment of the petitioners till the Industrial Court decides the complaint filed by the Appellants/petitioners. The Industrial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the matters and dispose of them on or before 31.12.1997. In view of the order passed by the Supreme Court, referred to above, the respondent No. 1 could be at liberty to approach this Court again for modification of this order, in case the Industrial Court does not decide and dispose of the matters before 31.12.1997.
7. C.C. expedited.
