1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3795 OF 2010 (Ramesh S. Jagtap vs. Plantation Officer, Social Forestry Range & Anr.) 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. SEPTEMBER 21, 2010. Heard finally Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for the respondents. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner – employee states that vide its judgment dated 13.10.2008, this Court remanded the matter back to Labour Court to record appropriate finding on the point of industry and also on other aspects. Thereafter, the petitioner – employee led evidence to show that activity of respondent – department constituted industry and the respondent did not lead any evidence. In spite of that, by placing reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, a finding has been given that the activities of department of Social Forestry do not constitute an industry. He argues that subsequent judgments are not looked into because of this finding. The petitioner, who has worked for about 12 years has not been given any relief. According to him, when violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 2 was established, unfair labour practice falling under item 1 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, also automatically stood proved and hence the finding of Labour Court in that respect is erroneous. During arguments, he pointed out that revisional Court did not hear the counsel for the petitioner and this has resulted in revision being dismissed. The learned AGP has contended that the burden to show that the activities of the department constituted industry, was upon the petitioner and Labour Court has correctly appreciated the situation. He further states that as the petitioner did not appear before the revisional court, the revisional court had no option but to decide the revision after perusing the records. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the impugned orders. It is apparent that the subsequent judgments of this Court are not pointed out to Labour Court. Not only this, the fact of violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is also not appropriately dealt with by the Labour Court. However, I am not recording any final verdict in this respect as the petitioner did not get any opportunity to argue the matter before the revisional Court. In present situation, I find that the interest of justice can be met with by permitting the petitioner as also the respondent to argue the revision afresh before 3 the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. For said purpose, the judgment dated 16th June 2010 delivered in Revision (ULP) No. 23 of 2009 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored back to its file for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. The petitioner – revisional applicant shall not take any adjournment on the ground that his advocate is not available. The revisional Court shall decide the matter as early as possible and in any case by 28th February 2011. The parties to appear before the Revisional Court at Yavatmal, on 15.10.2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Jagdale, learned counsel states that the petitioner is continuing in service and hence status quo granted by this Court on 11th August 2010 be continued. The learned AGP states that he has no instructions about the present situation. In the circumstances, status quo granted on 11th August 2010 to continue during the pendency of hearing before the Industrial Court. JUDGE *GS.