(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 2432 of 2009 Sayyed Pirmohammad Dagadubhai, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Guha, Taluka : Rahuri, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Superintending Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Circle, Nagar Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar. 2. The Executive Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Division, Nagar Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar. 3. Sub-Divisional Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Division, Sub-Division Deolali-Pravara, Taluka : Rahuri, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate, for the petitioner. P.M. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. .................. (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 10TH JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27th February 2009 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint (ULP) No. 120/1997, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present petitioner. 3. The petitioner complainant had filed a complaint under Section 28 read with Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). It is the basic contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner has joined the respondents on 1-11-1986 and was working with them till 25-9-1987. It is the contention of the complainant, that he has worked for 240 days and as such, the respondents have committed unfair labour practice by not continuing him. 4. The claim of the petitioner complainant was resisted by the respondents. It was contended on behalf of the respondents, that the complaint was not tenable. 5. On the basis of rival pleadings, Issue No.3 was framed, which reads as under : (3) " Whether the respondents prove that Complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable ? " Ultimately, the Complaint has been dismissed. 6. Mr. P.V. Barde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though the complaint has been dismissed as not being tenable, there is no discussion in the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that on this short ground alone, the petition is liable to be allowed. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 7. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that though issue regarding jurisdiction has been framed by the Industrial Court, there is no discussion in the reasoning part of the judgment. 8. It is settled law that when the issues are framed by a Judicial Officer, while deciding issues, there has to be discussion and the reasons for deciding the issues either in the affirmative or in the negative. From the impugned order, it can be seen that there is not even a whisper as to how the Industrial Court finds the complaint to be not tenable. 9. This court has come across various orders passed by the same Judicial Officer in similar nature in various matters and this court was required to quash and set aside the orders and remand the complaints/revisions to the Industrial Court. This is one more of such (4) orders. The petition, therefore, succeeds on the short ground. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "A". The matter is remanded to the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, for deciding it afresh in accordance with law and the observations aforesaid. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Registrar (Judicial) of this court is directed to place this order and the earlier order passed by this court, pertaining to the same Judicial Officer, before the learned Guardian Judge of the Industrial Courts. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp2432