1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 852 OF 2010 Shri Jayant Madhukar Bhambere ... Petitioner v/s M/s.Enzo Chem Laboratories P. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.K.K.Malpathak for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Shah for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour Court dated 7.5.2009. By this order the Labour Court has found that the reference was not maintainable in view of Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Labour Court has further passed an award indicating that the reference is rejected. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Labour Court has considered the reference to be barred when the cause of action in the reference and the pending complaints were different. I have perused the Complaint (ULP) No.335 of 2000 wherein the petitioner had specifically sought a prayer 2 as follows:- “(A) It be declared that the respondent has committed unfair labour practice as mentioned above in issuing the charge-sheet and holding enquiry etc. etc.” 3. The complaint was filed under Items 1(a),(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The averments in the complaint would indicate that the Labour Court has not committed any error by holding that this complaint was in respect of the same charge-sheet and an enquiry pursuant to which the petitioner was terminated from service. Rather than amending the complaint the petitioner chose to raise an industrial dispute and obtained a reference. The Labour Court has rightly relied on various judgments of this Court and held that the reference must be rejected in view of the provisions of Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. A distinction was tried to be drawn between the cause of action in the complaint and in the reference by the learned advocate for the petitioner from the pleadings in the complaint. He contends that the complaint was filed because a new charge-sheet was issued on 27.12.2000 and that the complaint was not in respect of earlier charge-sheet dated 27.12.1998. He submits that the reference is made for adjudicating the dispute which has 3 arisen on account of the dismissal order being passed pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 27.12.1998 and the consequential enquiry. The averments in the complaint do not support these submissions of the learned advocate. 4. Hence, the writ petition stands rejected. 4