IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.217 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.217 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.217 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7252 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.7252 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.7252 OF 2006 1. M/s.Lubrizol India Ltd. ) Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, ) Thane. ) ) 2. Dr. A.S.Sharma, General ) Manager (R & D), M/s. ) Lubrizol India Ltd., Thane ) Belapur Road, Turbhe, ) Dist. Thane. ) 3. Shri M.G.Banerjee, Chairman ) & Managing Director, ) M/s.Lubrizol India Ltd., ) Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, ) Dist. Thane. ) ) 4. Shri M.P.Sadekar, Enquiry ) Officer, M/s. Lubrizol India ) Ltd., Thane Belapur Road, ) Turbhe, Dist. Thane. ) ) 5. Shri L.D.Thorat, Senior ) Personnel Officer, ) M/s.Lubrizol India Ltd., ) Thane Belapur Road, ) Turbhe Dist. Thane. )..Appellants. V/s. 1. Mrs.J.G.Rodriques "Garden ) House" Almeda Road, ) Thane - 400 602. ) ) 2. Smt.V.A.Raut, Judge, ) IV Labour Court, Thane, ) 2nd Floor, MSFC Building, ) Mulund Check Naka. ) ) 3. Mr.R.U.Ingule, Member, ) Industrial Court, Thane, ) 2nd Floor, MSFC Building, ) -= : 2 : =- Mulund Check Naka. )..Respondents. Mr.P.M.Patel, Advocate with Mr.P.C.Pavaskar for appellants. Mr.R.N.Nair, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13TH MARDH, 2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13TH MARDH, 2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13TH MARDH, 2008. JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal (‘LPA’ for short) arises from the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th January, 2007. By the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition held that the Industrial Court as well as the Labour Court were justified in holding that the enquiry conducted by the appellant / petitioner (‘employer’ for short) was not fair and proper. 2. In this case, the respondent No.1, a Stenographer (‘workman’ for short) was charge-sheeted on 2nd August, 1991 and on 30th September, 1991 on the ground of serious misconduct. An enquiry into the charge-sheet was held and on the basis of the enquiry report, the service of the workman was terminated on 28th May, 1993. -= : 3 : =- 3. Thereupon the workman filed a compliant (ULP) No.279 of 1993 and by an order dated 20th December, 2005 the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the employer was not fair and proper and that the findings are perverse. Revision application filed by the employer against the aforesaid decision of the Labour Court was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 20th July, 2006. The Writ Petition filed by the employer against the decision of the Industrial Court was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 9/1/2007 with directions to the Labour Court to dispose of the complaint expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of 6 months. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present LPA is filed. 4. Mr.P.M.Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employer submitted that both the Courts below seriously erred in holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper on grounds which were neither pleaded nor proved at the time of recording of evidence. He submitted that the enquiry could not be said to be vitiated on the ground that the same was conducted in English without appreciating the fact that the said proceedings were conducted in English at the instance of the workman who was a Stenographer. He submitted that in the facts of the case, the material on record clearly shows that the enquiry was fair and -= : 4 : =- proper and it is wholly unnecessary to adduce evidence in the matter. Accordingly, he submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the order passed by the Industrial Court. 5. We are not impressed by the arguments advanced on behalf of the employer. At the outset, it may be noted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition on 9/1/2007 had directed the Labour Court to dispose of the complaint preferably within a period of 6 months. It is not in dispute that the appellants have been seeking adjournments before the Labour Court merely because the appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge is pending. We fail to understand as to how the Labour Court acceded to the request of the appellants when there was no stay granted to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In any event, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. V/s. P.P. Mundhe Cooper Engineering Ltd. V/s. P.P. Mundhe Cooper Engineering Ltd. V/s. P.P. Mundhe reported in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court, 1900 A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court, 1900 A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court, 1900, it is not proper for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning the decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the same can be agitated, if worthy, even after the final adjudication. In the present case, the complaint has -= : 5 : =- been pending for almost 13 years before the Labour Court. It is open to the employer to establish the charges by adducing documentary evidence before the Labour Court. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we direct the Labour Court to dispose of the complaint expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from today without being influenced by this order as well as the orders which were impugned in the petition. 7. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J J.P.DEVADHAR, J J.P.DEVADHAR, J.