1 of 2 97-WP.13325.2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 97 WRIT PETITION NO. 13325 OF 2022 THE LATUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER VERSUS VIJAY MACHINDRA JADHAV ... Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for Respondent. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13327 OF 2022 THE LATUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER VERSUS LAXMAN BHUJANG GAIKWAD … Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 10th APRIL, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present petitions, the Petitioner assails the orders dated 25.02.2022 passed below Exhibit U-2 by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 69 of 2021 and 70 of 2021. 3. It is submitted that the main proceedings are still pending. In Tauseef 2026:BHC-AUG:16278 2 of 2 97-WP.13325.2022 view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions. However, the learned Industrial Court is directed to decide the main complaints within a period of one year from today. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Industrial Court shall decide the proceedings independently, without being influenced by the dismissal of the present petitions or any interim orders passed therein. 5. Hence, both the petitions stand disposed of. All points are kept open. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef