1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9481 OF 2009 D.S. Patil ....Petitioner V/s. The Vice President, Siemens Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Bennet D’Costa for the Petitioner. Mr.P.K. Rela, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.Piyush Shah for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner has filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under the. M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order, rejecting his application for interim relies, the present Petition has been filed. 3. A warning letter dated 22.4.1993 was issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner. The letter states that what is stated therein amounts to misconduct as per the Model Standing Order applicable to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was warned not to indulge in such or similar act failing which the management would be constrained to initiate disciplinary action against him. 4. The Petitioner has accepted the letter. He has however 2 endorsed at the foot thereof that he has not accepted the allegations against him and had accepted the letter under protest and reserved his right to take legal action in respect thereof. The Respondent by a letter dated 9.5.2009 stated that in view of the Petitioner having accepted the contents of the warning letter under protest, the management was constrained to enquire further in the matter and that he would be served a detailed charge-sheet in respect thereof. 5. Pursuant thereto, a charge-sheet was served on the Respondent by the Petitioners in respect of the same act of misconduct referred to in the warning letter. 6. The Petitioner contended that the charge-sheet amounted to the Respondent seeking to punish him twice over for the same offence which is not permissible in law. It is contended that the warning letter itself constituted a punishment under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Employment (S.O.) Rules, 1946. The said Rule refers to a warning or censure. There is no dispute that the warning letter itself constituted a punishment albeit a minor one. The question therefore is whether the Respondents are entitled to proceed against the Petitioner once again pursuant to the said charge sheet dated 28.2.2009. 7. Mr.Rele, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents stated that the management had considered the warning letter as non-est in view of the Petitioner not having accepted the contents thereof and having reserved his rights to challenge the same. On the other hand Mr.D’Costa, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner accepted the warning letter as a punishment and 3 that the Petitioner does not intend challenging the same. 8. In view of the above stand now taken by each of the parties, it is a moot question as to whether the charge sheet constitutes an attempt to punish the Petitioner twice over for the same alleged misconduct. If it does, prima-facie, it would be bad in law. However, of equal importance is Mr.Rele’s submission that the Respondents had withdrawn the warning letter in view of the Petitioner having denied the contents thereof and had in fact by the said charge sheet given the Petitioner a further opportunity of meeting the allegations. 9. It is necessary to have this preliminary objection decided finally before permitting the Respondents to proceed with the charge sheet. For if the same is decided in favour of the Petitioner, it would be a waste of time and money for both the sides if the proceedings were to continue. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside. The Industrial Court will decide the complaint finally. It is only considering the nature of the matter and especially because it involves a decision on the preliminary point of the entire charge sheet that I would request the Industrial Court to dispose of the matter on or before 30.6.2010. 11. Pending the disposal of the complaint, the departmental proceedings are stayed. It is made clear that the pendency of the complaint will not prevent the Respondents/management from instituting any other proceedings against the Petitioner for any other act of misconduct. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.