:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6418 OF 2008 Chairman, Satara District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Satara, Powai Naka, Taluka and District Satara, and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri Sanjay Sahebrao Babar ..Respondent Mr. Vijay Patil for petitioners. Mr. N.K. Singh i/by Mr. M.P. Vashi for respondent. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. Date : December 03, 2008. Date : December 03, 2008. Date : December 03, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule, by consent of the learned counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. With the consent of the learned counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The respondent was appointed as an Agricultural Development Officer by the petitioner on :2: 14/12/1987. On 28/5/2003 he was transferred as a Branch Manager of a Branch at Nele in the Taluka of Satara. The respondent instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (Complaint (UL)P No. 31 of 2003). During the pendency of the complaint, the respondent filed a pursis before the Industrial Court for withdrawal of the complaint, upon which, on 27/8/2003 the complaint was disposed of as withdrawn. A fresh complaint was instituted for challenging the same order of transfer dated 28/5/2003 (Complaint (ULP) No. 32 of 2004). During the pendency of the second complaint, the respondent was dismissed from service on 8/5/2006 on the ground of absence, after a disciplinary inquiry. The respondent filed an application for stay of the order of dismissal from service. The application was dismissed on 10/3/2008. 3. The Industrial Court by its order dated 18/8/2008 allowed the complaint and issued a direction setting aside the order of transfer dated 28/5/2003. The petitioner was also directed to allot work to the respondent of an Agricultural Development Officer, as :3: before the order of transfer dated 28/5/2003 with continuity of service. Backwages have been directed to be paid with consequential benefits. 4. When this petition came up for hearing on the previous occasion, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the respondent to take instructions. The submission of the petitioner was that the complaint, in so far as it challenged the order of transfer dated 28/5/2003 could not have been proceeded with since it had been rendered infructuous as a consequence of the dismissal of the respondent from service. It was in these circumstances that the learned counsel had sought an adjournment to take instructions as to whether it would be appropriate for the respondent to take recourse to the remedies available in law in order to challenge the order of dismissal. 5. During the course of the hearing, the court has been informed on behalf of the respondent, who is present in the court, that the respondent intends to challenge the order of dismissal dated 8/5/2006 on all grounds that are available in law. It is fairly :4: stated before the court that in view of the supervening events, namely, the termination of the respondent from service, the challenge to the order of transfer in Complaint (ULP) No. 32 of 2004 did not really survive. It has fairly not been disputed that in the circumstances, since the respondent had already been terminated from service on 8/5/2006, the Industrial Court could not have directed the petitioner to allot work to the respondent in the post of an Agricultural Development Officer together with backwages and continuity of service, particularly in the absence of a challenge to the order of termination. A complaint of unfair labour practices in relation to the dismissal of an employee could also not lie before the Industrial Court but before the Labour Court, since by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 a complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV lies before the Labour Court. 6. In the circumstances, in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent, the petition is disposed of in the following terms:- :5: (i) The respondent would be at liberty espouse such remedies as are available in law to him in order to challenge the order of dismissal dated 8/5/2006; (ii) In view of the fact that the respondent has been terminated from service, the order of the Industrial Court dated 18/8/2008 is quashed and set aside and Complaint (ULP) No. 32 of 2004 shall stand disposed of; (iii) No other point has been urged by either side. The petition shall stand disposed of in these terms. Interim order shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.)