1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2240 OF 1994 M/s. T.T.K. Biomed Limited, formerly knownas Larcom (Protectives) Ltd., 1-D/2/MIDC Industrial Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad 431 210 Through its Manager. ....Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Sayyad Zebunnisa, Waheed Colony, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad. ....Respondent. Shri. B.B. Yenge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 12th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This petition was listed for hearing on many occasions. However, lastly, it was listed on 29.7.2010, when this Court passed the following order :- "1. Put up after two weeks. If any of the party asks for adjournment on the next date in the matter, it shall be subject to cost of Rs. 500/-" 2. Shri. B.B. Yenge the learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Shri. Prabhakaran appears for respondent. Heard the matter finally. 2 3. The petitioner challenges the findings recorded in the order dated 6.4.1994 in Complaint (ULP) No. 463/90 passed by the Industrial Court at Aurangabad. The respondent/employee had preferred the Complaint (ULP) No. 463/1993, challenging the action of the petitioner in striking out her name from the muster roll on 19.6.1990. The Industrial Court framed the issues as under :- "1. Whether the complaint is tenable ? 2. Does complainant prove unfair labour practices as alleged committed by the respondent ? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the declaration sought ? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought ?" Issue No. 1, whether the complaint is tenable, is answered in negative. Issue No. 3, whether the complainant is entitled to declaration as sought, is answered in negative. Ultimately the issue No. 4 is also answered in the negative, holding that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for. The problem urged in this petition is in respect of decision on issue No. 2, which has been answered by the Industrial Court in the affirmative and it has been held that the complainant has proved the unfair labour practice under item 1 (f) of Schedule IV, committed by the petitioner. 4. The Industrial Court has held that it was a case of retrenchment 3 and hence, non-compliance of provisions of Section 25-F and 25-N of the Unfair Labour Practice Act has been committed by the petitioner/ employer. 5. In view of the fact that the complaint itself has been held to be not maintainable, there was no occasion for the Industrial Court to proceed to record the finding on merits as to whether the employer has committed an unfair labour practice as contemplated by item 1 (f) of Schedule IV of the said Act. In view of this, the finding recorded on issue No. 2 cannot be sustained. 6. Since the complaint is ultimately dismissed, no grievance can be made in that respect by the employer in this petition and hence, the petition needs to be disposed off by clarifying that the findings recorded on issue No. 2 shall not come in the way of the petitioners, in the event, if such a complaint is filed under item No. 1 (f) of the MRTU and PULP Act by the complainant before the Labour Court. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp2240.94