WP/1724/1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1724 OF 1999 Pune District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Pune ... Petitioner V/s. Popat Rambhau Kharabe & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. K.S. Bapat for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The Writ Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court, Pune dated 25th January, 1999 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No.172 of 1998. 2. The respondent No.1-workman was dismissed from service as it was found that he had committed certain acts of misconduct. This dismissal was pursuant to a domestic enquiry held at the instance of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner dismissing him from the services, the respondent No.1-workman approached the Labour Court, Pune by filing a Complaint (ULP) No.364 of 1987 under WP/1724/1999 2 Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The Labour Court held that the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. The Labour Court further upheld the order of dismissal issued against the respondent No.1-workman. 3. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Labour Court dismissing his complaint, the respondent No.1-workman preferred a Revision Application (ULP) No.172 of 1998 before the Industrial Court, Pune. That Revision Application was decided by the Industrial Court by its order dated 25th January, 1999 and the said order has been impugned in the present Writ Petition. On perusal of the said order of the Industrial Court, I find that the Industrial Court has merely reproduced the grounds in the Revision Application and the prayers made therein. The reasons for quashing the order passed by the Labour Court and remanding the Complaint (ULP) No.364 of 1987 are as follows : WP/1724/1999 3 “7) Point No.1 In the light of submissions of the parties, I have perused the enquiry proceeding, oral evidence. It is pertinent to note that the enquiry was held fair, proper and legal. So it is not necessary to consider whether the chargesheet is vargue or not as enquiry was held fiar, proper and legal and the name order was not challenged in Apex Court. Secondly there is error in deciding two issue together. As it is settled law and in view of reported case of our own High Court each unfair Labour practice under item 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) & (g) is to be decided separately. So I find error in the order under Revision. Hence I answer Point No.1 in partly affirmative.” 4. Based on the above reasons, the Industrial Court has remanded the complaint to the Labour Court for proper appreciation of evidence. In my opinion, these reasons are less than adequate for remanding the complaint. It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the learned Judge for remanding the matter to the Labour Court. The Industrial Court has, in fact, not considered any of the arguments either of the workman concerned or of the employer. There is no discussion at all as to the contentions raised by either parties. Strangely the Court has observed that because the enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the vagueness of the charge issued was not to be considered. Moreover, neither of WP/1724/1999 4 the Advocates appearing before me is able to demonstrate that there is settled law in view of reported cases of this Court that each unfair labour practice must be decided separately, as stated by the Industrial Court. 5. Considering the cryptic order and the reasons mentioned by the Industrial Court for quashing the order of the Labour Court, in my opinion, the only possible view to be taken in this Writ Petition is to quash the order of the Industrial Court. 6. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions : “O R D E R” (i). The impugned order dated 25th January, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (ULP) No.172 of 1998 is set aside. The Revision Application (ULP) No.172 of 1998 is remanded to the Industrial Court, Pune for a fresh hearing. WP/1724/1999 5 (ii). The Industrial Court, Pune will decide the Revision Application (ULP) No.172 of 1998 within a period of three months from today. (iii). Parties to appear before the Industrial Court, Pune on 4th October, 2010 at 11 a.m. for further directions. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. 8. No order as to costs.