1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 308 OF 2010 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri. ... Petitioner v/s Shri Anant Shankar Diwadkar, Tal.Guhagar, Dist. Ratnagiri. ... Respondent Mr.Neel Helekar for the petitioner. Smt.Revati Rajput for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 12.1.2009 in Complaint (ULP) No.175 of 1995. 2. The main contention of the petitioner appears to be that the Industrial Court has decided the complaint without taking into consideration the provisions of Maharashtra Zilla 2 Parishads, Zilla Service (Conduct) Rules, 1967 and M.Z.P. Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 3. The complaint was filed by the respondent contending that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The pleadings indicate that the respondent contended that the disciplinary action taken against him was not proper since no show cause notice as required in law was issued to him prior to inflicting the punishment. It was further pleaded that the findings of the enquiry officer, in the domestic enquiry initiated against the respondent, were perverse inasmuch as the enquiry officer had found the respondent to be guilty of only Charge No.5 contained in the charge-sheet. The pleadings also indicate that the disciplinary authority had not given any reasons for differing with the view taken by the enquiry officer in respect of Charge Nos.1 to 4. 4. A perusal of the order of the Industrial Court indicates that the Industrial Court has not considered the issues raised before it in the complaint. The issues framed also do not reflect the questions which were in dispute between the parties. There is no issue framed as to whether the show 3 cause notice has been issued by the petitioners prior to imposing the punishment nor is there any issue framed as to whether assuming there a show cause notice had been issued, was it was necessary for the petitioners to offer a personal hearing once again to the respondent before the disciplinary authority arrived at a conclusion, other than the one which the enquiry officer had recorded. Apart from this, there is no issue framed as to whether the decision of the disciplinary authority was in conformity with the provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 1967 and of the Rules of 1964. 5. In my opinion, therefore, the order of the Industrial Court must be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside. 6. The complaint is remanded for hearing it afresh on all issues. The Industrial Court will re-hear the matter on all points and decide the complaint afresh. There is no indication as to whether the enquiry proceedings were placed on record before the Industrial Court by the petitioners. In the event the enquiry proceedings are not filed on record, the petitioners shall produce the same before the Industrial Court. 4 7. Parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings and to lead fresh evidence. 8. The Industrial Court shall decide the complaint within six months from the date of this order. .....