1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6370 OF 2010 Ashok Bhagchand Wardhani Petitioner Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & another Respondents Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 28th February, 2011. PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.03.2010, passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, dismissing the Revision Application, filed by the petitioner. The Revision Application was filed under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, against the order dated 02.07.2009, passed on the application at Exhibit U-2. The petitioner, in this application, had prayed for his reinstatement in view of the order passed by the High Court, suspending his conviction in Criminal Special Case No. 2 133/2007, for the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that I need not record reasons for disposing of this writ petition, on merits. He, however, invited my attention to the observations made by the Industrial Court in the impugned judgment, on the question, whether the Complaint filed by the petitioner is tenable. It appears that the Industrial Court has considered this question and recorded its prima facie finding that the petitioner would not fall within the definition of “workman” and hence the Complaint, under the provisions of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, would not be tenable. 4 Insofar as this finding is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondents is unable to defend those findings recorded while dealing with the Revision Application wherein the said issue/question did not fall for consideration of the Industrial Court. 5 In the circumstances, the Labour Court is directed to consider all the questions, including the question of tenability of the Complaint afresh, as if that there are no such findings in the order dated 20.03.2010, passed by the Industrial Court. In other words, as agreed by learned Counsel for the parties, the Labour Court shall deal with all the issues, including the issue whether the petitioner is a workman and/or the Complaint is tenable, independently and 3 without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. The Labour Court shall endeavour to dispose of the Complaint, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of this order. 6 Petition is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp637010