( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 209 OF 2010 Shri Namdeo Wanji Bachhav, R/o Nijampur, Tal. Sakri, District Dhule. PETITIONER VERSUS Dhule District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dhule, through its Managing Director. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Amol S. Sawant, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patil, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th April, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is employee against whom disciplinary enquiry was held by the respondent No. 1 – Cooperative Bank. As a result of disciplinary enquiry, he was removed from service. He challenged the order rendered alleging that the ( 2 ) respondent No. 1 – Bank committed unfair labour practices as contemplated in Schedule-IV, Item Nos. 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “the MRTU & PULP Act”). The complaint (ULP) No. 23/2006 was allowed after considering the evidence tendered by the parties. The respondent Bank preferred revision application vide revision (ULP) No. 7/2008 before the Industrial Court, Dhule. The learned Member of the Industrial Court directed remand of the matter to the Labour Court for framing of preliminary issue regarding fairness of the enquiry and observance of principles of natural justice and to decide the same. The Industrial Court held that it is only after decision of such issue that the respondent Bank could be given opportunity to lead evidence in order to prove the charges. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned Member of the Industrial Court referred to “The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Mundhe” (AIR 1975 S.C. 1900). The Apex Court held that the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. In ( 3 ) the present case, the question of observance of the principles of natural justice was not, in fact, much significant. The petitioner was given due opportunity to defend himself. Moreover, the respondent Bank adduced evidence of two (2) witnesses in support of its case. The Labour Court observed that the respondent Bank examined Shridhar Dalpat Patil and Atmaram Jago Patil, who had filed their affidavits. So also, the respondent Bank placed reliance on the disciplinary enquiry and relevant documents. It is important to note that the main charge against the petitioner was that he had proceeded on leave without any prior permission and remained absent without authority. Thus, the charge was of illegal absentia. The charge could be considered on basis of documentary evidence, coupled with explanation submitted by the petitioner. Another important question involved was as to whether the order of removal/dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct alleged and proved. When the Bank adduced its evidence simultaneously, there was no propriety in remanding of the matter to the Labour Court. 5. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to rely on certain observations in “Delhi Cloth and ( 4 ) General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh” (AIR 1972 S.C. 1031). The Apex Court observed : “60. From the above decisions, the following principles broadly emerege : (1) ***** (2) ***** (3) When the management relies on the enquiry conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to consider whether the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management, are valid and proper. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been held properly and are valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits, no longer survives. It is only when the Tribunal holds that the enquiry proceedings have not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by the management and decide the matter on the basis of such evidence.” Perusal of the above observations would show that where simultaneous process of adducing evidence before the Tribunal is conducted, there is no need to again give opportunity to ( 5 ) the employer to lead further evidence and to frame the issue as a preliminary one. In this view of the matter, the Industrial Court itself should have re-appreciated the evidence and should have decided the revision application (ULP) No. 7/2008 on its own merits. The remand order is, therefore, uncalled for. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The revision application (ULP) No. 7/2008 is restored to its original position with direction that the learned Member of Industrial Court shall expeditiously decide the same after de novo consideration thereof on merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The ad-interim order rendered by the Industrial Court may be deemed to have been restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp209-2010