:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1985 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1985 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1985 OF 2009 National Heavy Engineering Co-op. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus Mahadev A. Dhage & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. K. S. Bapat i/b. M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. N. A. Kulkarni for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the learned Industrial Court confirming the Order of the Labour Court and upholding the reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 - workman. 3. Mr. Bapat, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out rightly that in the present case it is the Industrial Court which has given a finding that the petitioner has committed an unfair :2: labour practice by imposing shockingly disproportionate punishment on the respondent No. 1. The learned counsel points out that the Labour Court has on the contrary given a clear and categorical finding that the petitioner is not guilty of any unfair labour practice vide paragraph 12. 4. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the Industrial Court has in revision merely corrected the Order of the Labour Court. According to the learned counsel the finding that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate is given by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court has merely described that as an unfair labour practice while upholding the Order. 5. Having heard both the sides, it appears that the learned Industrial Court committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record by giving a finding for the first time that the act of the petitioner amounts to an unfair labour practice on the basis that the Labour Court has itself given that finding. In fact the Labour Court has not given any such finding but has given a finding to the contrary. It was therefore not open for the :3: Industrial Court to record the finding to that effect in the first instance. The Industrial Court should have remanded the matter to the Labour Court. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties shall be permitted to amend their pleadings and lead additional evidence in accordance with law. The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter within six months from the date the parties first appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before it on 13.4.2009. 6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)