JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the Orders dated 22nd September, 1999, 21st December, 1999 and 7th March, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, the 2nd respondent herein, in Complaint (U.L.P) No. 385 of 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that an important question of law arises in this petition as to the powers of the Industrial Court under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U P.U.L.P Act") to grant interim reliefs, which is the final relief itself. 2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of construction of projects, such as bridges, canals, wharfages, jetties, roads, etc. As such projects are to be completed within fixed period of time, the petitioner company employs for the aforesaid projects daily rated workmen and also employs casual field enlisted workmen, local daily rated workmen and monthly staff. From the field casual workmen, depending upon the skill, period of work and the nature of work performed by the said field casual workmen, selective workmen are put in a list known as "B-list". Such B-listed workmen are given preference in providing work at newly opened sites in Greater Mumbai and also considered for permanency subject to their eligibility depending on the requirement of permanent workmen according to the needs in subsequent years. 3. The petitioner company has entered into a Settlement on 12th September, 1997 in respect of daily rated permanent site workmen and B-listed workmen and certain other workmen engaged at various sites in Greater Mumbai and Airoli (New Mumbai). As per the said Settlement, vide Clause 4 thereof, the petitioner company agreed to initially make 30 B-listed workmen, whose names are shown in Annexure "A" to the said Settlement as permanent workmen subject to the conditions mentioned therein, such as proof of age and medical fitness as per the medical examination conducted by the panel doctors of the company. A copy of the Settlement is attached to the petition at Exhibit A. Clause 4 of the settlement is as follows : 4. A copy of the Settlement is attached to the petition at Exhibit A. Clause 4 of the settlement is as follows : 4. Permanency Thirty workmen from 'B' list, whose names are given to ANNEXURE 'A' will be made permanent with effect from 1-4-97 subject to their producing all documents required, including age proof either in form of school leaving certificate or Age proof issued by the Government Medical Hospital (J.J. Hospital) of to the satisfaction of management. They will also be required to undergo Medical examination as prescribed conducted by the management. They will be placed at a lowest basic wage in the grade of unskilled workmen. Selection of permanency is mostly made from the 'B' list prepared in 1988 on the basis of performance number of days present. In accordance with the aforesaid term, the workmen were required to undergo the medical examination. The first respondent along with 29 other workman was sent for medical examination to Dr. F.E Palia of M/s. Clinical Diagnostic Centre, Mumbai. On 29th December, 1997, the medical opinion was as follows : "Antibodies to HIV I II Reactive" On the basis of this finding, the Doctor has opined that as the first respondent is found to be HIV Reactive, he cannot be declared to be fit. Relying on this certificate, the petitioner informed the First respondent that he cannot be considered for permanency as he is found medically unfit. The first respondent was, therefore, constrained to file a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 385 of 1999 in the Industrial Court, Mumbai under Item 9 10 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The first respondent also filed an application for interim relief. The first respondent thereafter went for a medical examination at the J.J. Group of Hospitals, Bombay. On 12th August, 1998, the J.J. Hospital in its report has stated that the first respondent has been found to be negative for HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies. The authenticity of this certificate was denied by the petitioner. In its order dated 22nd September, 1999, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the First respondent has succeeded in making out a fairly strong prima facie case of unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of the M.R.T.U P.U.L.P Act. The authenticity of this certificate was denied by the petitioner. In its order dated 22nd September, 1999, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the First respondent has succeeded in making out a fairly strong prima facie case of unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of the M.R.T.U P.U.L.P Act. However, since the authenticity of the certificate given by the J.J. Group of Hospitals was doubted, no interim relief was granted to the first respondent. The petitioner was directed to make an arrangement to get the First respondent and the other applicant re-examined from Dr. F.E. Palia, pertaining to their suffering from HIV Positive, as well as the ability of the applicants to perform the normal job requirements and their posing any risk of health hazard to others at the workplace, within eight days from passing of the order. The First respondent and the other applicants were directed to get medically re-examined from Dr. Palia within the stipulated eight days. One of the grounds for challenging the certificate issued by the J.J. Hospital was the age of the first respondent which was shown to be 30 years. It was, therefore, claimed that the certificate has been issued by examining a person other than the First respondent. The First respondent, therefore, submitted a second medical certificate from the J.J. Group of Hospitals dated 2nd November, 1999. In this certificate, the age of the First respondent is shown as 47 years. This certificate dated 2nd November, 1999 reiterated the report given earlier to the effect that the First respondent has tested "Negative for HIV-1 HIV-2 antibodies". The First respondent made an application on 16th November, 1999 that the proceedings be adjourned for one month as he had approached the petitioner to reconsider their stand. In view of the above, by its order dated 21st December, 1999, the Industrial Court held that there is no necessity for the complainant to get re-examined by Dr. Palia. The order dated 22nd September, 1999 was modified with a direction to the petitioner to act on the medical certificate issued by the J.J. Hospital and not to insist on the complainant to be medically re-examined by Dr. Palia. Palia. The order dated 22nd September, 1999 was modified with a direction to the petitioner to act on the medical certificate issued by the J.J. Hospital and not to insist on the complainant to be medically re-examined by Dr. Palia. Being aggrieved against the order dated 21st December, 1999, the petitioner filed an application before the second respondent praying that the order deserves to be reviewed in as much as the first respondents has not produced the certificate about the ability and health hazard as per the direction contained in the order dated 22nd September, 1999. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the Industrial Court by its order dated 7th March, 2000. The Industrial Court has observed that under such circumstances, it is highly unbecoming, unjustified and unwarranted on the part of the petitioner to present the application through the Vice-President of the Company. 4. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that in substance no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner company to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this interim stage. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that out of field casual workmen, depending on the skill, period of work and nature of work performed by the said field casual workmen, selective workmen are put on a list known as "B" list. It thus becomes apparent that "B" list consists of workmen found suitable to be made permanent. The name of the respondent No. 1 appears at Serial No. 4 of the "A" List. He has been excluded from the "B" list merely on the basis of the medical opinion of Dr. Palia. The decision of the petitioner being arbitrary the Industrial Court rightly observed that it is unbecoming, unjustified and unwarranted. The attitude adopted by the petitioner company betrays total ignorance about the condition of being HIV positive. It is surprising that a person who is merely to work on a construction site is sought to be denied permanency on a job on the ground that he is HIV positive. The attitude is based on a fear psychosis generated by the other workers shutting the company of respondent No. 1. It is stated by the petitioner before the Industrial Court that "the respondent is not making person who suffers from positive HIV Aids, permanent. The attitude is based on a fear psychosis generated by the other workers shutting the company of respondent No. 1. It is stated by the petitioner before the Industrial Court that "the respondent is not making person who suffers from positive HIV Aids, permanent. The respondents have taken the policy decision on general conception of the said decease amongst the workmen. I submit that the said policy is just and fair and in the interest of the co-workers and others." This kind of attitude of the employer has to be deprecated in very strong terms. After the J.J. Group of Hospitals had actually declared the first respondent to be free from the disease, the petitioner had absolutely no justification in not making the first respondent permanent in accordance with his turn. I am of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine with costs. Costs Rs. 10,000/-. Petition dismissed. -----