(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11127 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11128 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11129 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 11127 OF 2010 Adiwasi Dudh Utpadak Krishi Purak Udyog Sahakari Sangh Limited, Nandurbar, Taluka & District : Nandurbar, Through its Manager, Prabhakar Popat Patil, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Nandurbar, Taluka & District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioner. versus Kedar s/o. Barku Patil, Age : 42 years, Occupation : - , R/o. Wawad, Taluka : Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. .. Respondent. ....................... (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 11128 OF 2010 Adiwasi Dudh Utpadak Krishi Purak Udyog Sahakari Sangh Limited, Nandurbar, Taluka & District : Nandurbar, Through its Manager, Prabhakar Popat Patil, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Nandurbar, Taluka & District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioner. versus Rahimkhan s/o. Nasirkhan Pathan, Age : 51 years, Occupation : - , R/o. Alisahab Mohalla, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. .. Respondent. ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 11129 OF 2010 Adiwasi Dudh Utpadak Krishi Purak Udyog Sahakari Sangh Limited, Nandurbar, Taluka & District : Nandurbar, Through its Manager, Prabhakar Popat Patil, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Nandurbar, Taluka & District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioner. (3) versus Ratnakar s/o. Dagadu Girnar, Age : 48 years, Occupation : - , R/o. 19, Patel Wadi, "Girnar" Korit Road, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. .. Respondent. ............................... Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate, for petitioner in in all the three petitions. Mr. A.G. Magare, Advocate, for respondents in all the three petitions. ****************** CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Industrial Court has remanded the proceedings in three ULP Complaints to Labour Court, after observing that the (4) Labour Court has not considered the evidence of employer's witness and that entire oral and documentary evidence needed consideration. Because of this finding, the Industrial Court though it proper to give parties an opportunity of argument before Labour Court. 3. The petitioner / employer has contended that so called evidence of employer is looked into by the Labour Court and for that purpose, reliance is being placed upon the finding recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph No.39 of its judgment. It is further stated that the relieving order dated 31-5-2006 at Exhibit U-12 is looked into by the Labour Court along with the order of termination and the document exhibiting its service upon the respondent. 4. Mr. A.G. Magare, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents / employees has contended that the matter is only sent back and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The Labour Court will give parties, fresh opportunity and findings will be recorded again. He has pointed out that there was no one month notice as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prior to termination and the reason of loss pressed into service for justifying retrenchment is found to be incorrect by the Industrial Court because of profit in (5) the year 2004-05. 5. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have perused both the judgments. The relieving order dated 31-5-2006 appears to have been proved and accepted at Exhibit U-12. The discussion in paragraph 35 of the judgment delivered by the Labour Court does not indicate that order of termination (retrenchment) dated 22-4-2006 has been given any exhibit number. It appears that the same was forwarded by Certificate of Posting on 12-4-2006 and the said certificate also does not appear to be exhibited. Whether those documents are proved or not, is not apparent from the record, as filed before this Court. 6. The finding of Industrial Court show that there was some profit in the year 2004-05. The said finding is recorded due to reason for termination given in retrenchment order dated 22-4-2006. However, whether such profit in one year is relevant or not, is again a question. 7. The entire evidence of witness for respondent on which the Industrial Court has based its order has not been produced before this Court. 8. In this situation, I find that the approach of Industrial (6) Court does not warrant any interference. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 9. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11127etc