1 wp 5347.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5347 OF 2011 Babasaheb S/o Rupchand Potphode, Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Amrapur, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar Division, Sarjepura, Kothala, Ahmednagar. Through Divisional Controller. 3. The Depot Manager, The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Shevgaon Depot, Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents Shri A. N. kakade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri M. K. Goyanka, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2 wp 5347.11 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner had filed Complaint ULP No. 13/1999 before the Labour Court challenging his termination. The Labour Court partly allowed the complaint set aside the order of termination, granted reinstatement with continuity, but without backwages. The petitioner challenged the said order to the extent of non grant of backwages. The Industrial Court set aside the order of Labour Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The said order is assailed by the petitioner. 3. Shri Kakade, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the revision was filed against non grant of backwages. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in revision is limited. It could not have travelled beyond the dispute before it. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not challenged the order of Labour Court and had accepted the order of Labour Court reinstating the petitioner. The Industrial Court exceeded its 3 wp 5347.11 jurisdiction while setting aside the complete order passed by the Labour Court and remanding the matter. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Sciaky Wire Cut Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Vishnu Dhotre reported in 2008 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. 248. 4. Per contra Shri Goyanka, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the revisional jurisdiction has been properly exercised. The revisional jurisdiction is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction. The Industrial Court had found that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the relevant fact and as such has rightly remanded the matter to the Labour Court by setting aside the order. No fault can be found in the judgment of the Industrial Court. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the judgments. The present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had accepted and acquiesced the order passed by the Labour Court reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner was only aggrieved by non grant of backwages and to that limited extent the revision was preferred. The jurisdiction of the revisional Court in that case was limited to the issue of backwages only. The Industrial 4 wp 5347.11 Court could not have travelled beyond the said jurisdiction and could not have re-appreciated the evidence again as has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Sciaky Wire Cut Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Vishnu Dhotre referred supra. 6. As far as non grant of backwages is concerned, I do not find any error committed by the Labour Court while not granting the same. 7. In view of the above I quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar and restore the order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 13/1999 dated 26.08.2008. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11