1/3 30-WP-6006-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 6006 OF 2026 State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue & Forest Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. VS Ku. Aradhana d/o Arjun Patokar @ Sau Aradhana w/o Dipak Khotre, Akola - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Smt K. H. Bhondge, Assistant Government Pleader for petitioners. Shri Ved R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 8th September, 2026 P. C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition challenges the order dated 08/05/2026 passed below Exhibit-U-10 by the Industrial Court, Akola in complaint (ULP) No.98/2025. The said order is passed on an application under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, MRTU & PULP Act). 3. I have heard Smt K. H. Bhondge, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners/State. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Industrial Court has committed a grave error of law and has not considered the defence specifically put forth by the petitioners. She submits that inspite of the defence that 2026:BHC-NAG:12233 2/3 30-WP-6006-26.odt there was no specific employer-employee relationship, the Industrial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- employee refuted the said contention. He points me out the fact that main complaint was filed seeking regularization and it is still pending. During pendency of the said complaint, application under Section 32 was filed since employee has been discontinued during pendency of the complaint. He therefore submits that there is nothing wrong in the order of the Industrial Court. 5. I have gone through the record of the matter and also appreciated the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the Industrial Court has specifically observed that specific directions were issued through the interim order as the matter was subjudice and if there was any change in circumstance, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to inform the same and seek prior permission by filing an application. 6. It is thus observed by the Industrial Court that the services of the present respondent are intact on the said premise of the impugned order as passed. 7. After hearing the counsel in entirety, I do not find any perversity in the said order and no interference is 3/3 30-WP-6006-26.odt warranted. The facts are more or less admitted. It is pointed out to me that during the pendency of complaint before the Industrial Court, services of the respondent were discontinued and the employee was constrained to file complaint. That being so, there is no perversity in the impugned order. The petition is without merit and misconceived and is liable to be rejected. Same is rejected. 8. It is however made clear that this Court has not commented upon merits of the main matter and the Industrial Court would decide the same in accordance with law. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that contempt proceedings are pending. It is clarified that judgment of this Court in the present petition is only to extent of deciding legality/validity of the impugned order and no comment is made upon the contempt proceedings. 10. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE,J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 10:39:45