1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5096 OF 2010 (The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Ashok Trimbak Mhaisalkar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 25, 2010. I have heard Shri Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deo, learned counsel for the respondent earlier and then the matter was adjourned again to point out specific stages from the order sheets maintained by the Enquiry Officer to show compliance with the principles of natural justice or availability of any legal evidence to justify the findings of Enquiry Officer. After about 20 minutes, the matter has been heard again. The short contention of Shri Ghate, learned counsel is, as Enquiry was accepted to be fair and valid, alleged violation of principles of natural justice was not relevant to find out whether the findings of Enquiry Officer were perverse or not. He has invited attention to paras 7 & 8 of the order of Labour Court dated 27.11.2009 to urge that it does not show consideration of material relevant for declaring enquiry report to be perverse. In this situation, according to him, the power of revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition 2 of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act) was not attracted as this is an exceptional case. Shri Deo, learned counsel for the respondent – employee has urged that Labour Court has passed an order on preliminary point and Revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act against it is rightly held to be not maintainable. He wants to rely upon certain judgments to substantiate said contention. In the alternative, he has pointed out that absolutely no evidence was adduced by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and hence there is no legal evidence on record to substantiate the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. With the assistance of both learned counsel, I have perused paras 7 & 8 of the impugned order of Labour Court dated 27.11.2009. The perusal clearly reveals that Labour Court has made reference to employee being accepted to keep 24 hours watch on activities of sugar factory and on stock of sugar hypothecated with the petitioner – Bank. It has found that expectation inhuman and impossible of compliance. The Labour Court has also found that he was not given any accommodation at site where stocks were kept and there was no man power working under him for that purpose. Additionally, it has also noticed that certain stocks of sugar were lying in open. In para 8, it has found that merely on the basis of stock statement and sale of sugar within particular period, the employee was 3 implicated. All these observations are on the basis of material available on record of departmental enquiry. The order sheets maintained by Enquiry Officer nowhere show that the petitioner examined any of its officers or employees to substantiate the charge or to prove the documents. It is, therefore, obvious that there is no legal evidence on the basis of which a finding of guilt could have been reached by the Enquiry Officer. This is not a case where employee accepted his guilt. On the contrary, he submitted his deposition on record in order to prove his innocence and there is nothing to show that he was cross examined. Not only this, there is nothing to show that he was given an opportunity to lead additional evidence in defence. The Labour Court has no doubt noticed violation of principles of natural justice at a stage while considering perversity or otherwise of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, as those conclusions of violation of principles of natural justice are not erroneous or perverse, I am inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has to lead evidence to prove misconduct and also the status of the respondent – employee as per its stand in written statement. This responsibility or opportunity cannot be avoided by the petitioner. Looking to the nature of controversy and the fact that Complaint ULP is pending since 2003, the proceedings therein are made time bound. The petitioner shall start leading necessary evidence from 1st 4 week of December 2010 and Labour Court shall attempt to decide the ULP Complaint No. 206 of 2003 as early as possible and in any case within a further period of six months thereof. With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.