1. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forth with.
2. This writ petition is filed by the respondent in complaint ULP No. 8\93 pending in the Labour Court, Aurangabad. Pending the complaint the
Respondent filed application, Exh. U2 for interim relief of reinstatement but that application was rejected by the Labour Court against which the
respondent filed Revision No. 35 of 1994 in the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court set aside the order passed by the U. hour Court & granted
the application directing the petitioner respondent to reinstate the respondent retrain in service during the pendency; and disposal of the complaint.
3.That order dt. July 5, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court is questioned in this writ petition.
4. It is well settled that under See. 30(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, interim orders cannot be granted in the absence of strong prima facie
case in favour of the complainant. It, therefore, necessarily follows that it is incumbent on the Court first to see the existence of strong primafacie
case in favour of the complainant by raising relevant issues to be tried in the complaint. In the absence of strong prima facie case interim order
would be vitiated in law. The respondent has challenged the termination of his services solely on the ground that he has served with the petitioner
more than 240 days and as such he has become permanent employee. It is no doubt true that according to the petitioner, the respondent was
appointed on temporary basis for a period of six months with certain breaks but his appointment was purely temporary and that too on daily wages
w.e.f. August 1, 1989. The completion of 240 days will not he the only criteria to consider permanency in employment. The Industrial Court,
therefore, appears to have committed error in granting interim order in the form of final relief in the complaint without determining the main issue
involved in the complaint.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
6. Mr. Hivrekar, learned counsel for the respondent submits. that the complaint may he ordered to he expedited and disposed of within three
months. Mr.Thombre has no objection. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the complaint ULP No. 8/93 within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.