PVR 1 lpa201-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.201 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.852 OF 2010 Shri.Jayant Madhukar Bhambere. ...Appellant vs. M/s.Enzo Chem Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.K.K.Malpathak, for Appellant. Mr.Piyush Shah, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 9th September, 2010 P.C.: 1. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the departmental inquiry, while the departmental inquiry was pending, in the Complaint filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The ultimate order imposing punishment could, no doubt, have been challenged by the appellant in the proceedings under the Unfair Labour Practices PVR 2 lpa201-10 Act by seeking amendment. Instead of doing so, the Industrial Dispute was raised. The learned Single Judge has, in our opinion, rightly held that in view of Section 59 of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.Act the reference was barred. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case C.S.Dixit Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Pune, 2000 II CLR 719 held against the appellant. In paragraph 16 the Full Bench has held that As has been noted so far in the various decisions, the provision of Section 59 is based on the salutary principle of compelling a party to stick to the remedy that he had taken recourse to. In our opinion, therefore, the remedy of the Appellant was to seek amendment in the Complaint pending before the Industrial Court where he has challenged the departmental inquiry. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ...