1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2667/1999 Chandrapur District Central Co.Op. Bank ..versus.. Pandurang Sakharam Wasakhe =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri A.S.Chandurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Ghate, counsel for respondent. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 2nd JULY, 2010. Heard. Rule and interim stay in terms of prayer clause (B) was granted on 22nd July, 1999. 2) The Bank/employer feels aggrieved by filing of two complaints by the employee/respondent, one before the Labour Court at Chandrapur and another under Section 28 before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, on 23rd February, 1999, seeking declaration that the employer had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9, Schedule IV of the Act. The action before the Industrial Court was first in time, while the action before the learned Labour Court at Chandrapur was subsequent i.e. dated 25th February, 1999, seeking a declaration that the employer had committed unfair labour practice under Item 1, Schedule IV of the Act, 2 which was in terms of Section 28 of the said Act. 3) An application below Exh.12 was moved by the employer before the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant/employee has challenged the oral termination before the Labour Court, Chandrapur and also sought challenge under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, on the same cause of action dated 15.1.1999. 4) The learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, had observed in paragraph 5 of his judgment that, there is no bar of claiming two different reliefs on the same cause of action before the two different forums, as the employee has challenged the oral termination of services, which is an exclusive jurisdiction of Labour Court and the employee has also claimed relief of reemployment in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The claim by the employee cannot be said to be availing two forums for the said relief. Consequently, the learned Member rightly rejected the application. 5) I do not see any perversity in the orders passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. Writ 3 Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit