vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3999 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3999 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3999 OF 2007 Shri Suresh Sadanand More ... Petitioners Vs. M/s.Eicher Limited & Ors. ... Respondents A/W WRIT PETITION NO.4047 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4047 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4047 OF 2007 Shri Suresh Sadanand More ... Petitioners Vs. M/s.Eicher Limited & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Ravindra Nair for Petitioner Mrs.N.R. Patankar with Mr.V.P. Sawant for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 14, 2007 AUGUST 14, 2007 AUGUST 14, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner was issued two chargesheets for certain acts of misconduct since the petitioner’s reply was not found to be satisfactory. Domestic enquiries were conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry officer has given his findings on the basis of which the respondent company forwarded the report to the petitioner. While forwarding the report, the respondent company called upon the petitioner to comment upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer in both the enquiries. Instead of submitting his comments or exceptions taken by him to the enquiry report, the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.635 of 1999 challenging the enquiries : 2 : conducted against him in respect of the two chargesheets. 2. Writ Petition No.3999 of 2007 has been filed challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 26.4.2005 and of the Industrial Court in revision application No.106 of 2006. This writ petition must be dismissed as the order of the Labour Court has resulted in the Labour Court passing an order in respect of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. This order of the Labour Court dated 23.8.2005 has been challenged by the petitioner in Writ petition NO.4047 of 2007. The Labour Court has concluded that the enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper procedurally. However, it appears from the order that the aspect regarding perversity has not been considered. 3. Mrs.Patankar, the learned Counsel for the respondent company, points out that the complaints had been filed prior to any action being taken pursuant to the enquiry report. The petitioner has been on suspension for 10 years and on various occasions, the revision applications have been filed. Thus, delaying the entire process of decision in the complaint. She points out that in the year 1999 and 2000, the company had called upon the petitioner to submit his comments on the enquiry officer’s reports in respect of both the : 3 : enquiries, which the petitioner has not done so far. She submits that the company has thus not been able to consider whether it should take any punitive action against the petitioner for the last 10 years. 4. In these circumstances, Writ Petition No.3999 of 2007 must be dismissed as it has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as such. In case of Writ Petition No.4047 of 2007, the following order would meet the ends of justice: ORDER i) The petitioner shall submit his comments on the reports of the Enquiry Officer in respect of both the enquiries conducted against him within four weeks from today. ii) After receiving the petitioner’s comments, the company may take action against the petitioner if they so desire in accordance with law. iii) In the event the company desires to terminate the services of the petitioner either by way of dismissal or discharge, the company shall pass the order and : 4 : keep the same in abeyance for a period of two weeks therefrom. iv) The petitioner may then, if so advised, challenge that order. v) In the event the petitioner does challenge the order of dismissal or discharge by filing a Complaint or by seeking a Reference, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal will decide the perversity of the enquiries held against the petitioner; the fairness of the enquiries having already been decided by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No.635 of 1999. vi) In the event the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal dismisses the complaint/ Reference and the petitioner challenges that order in this Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the orders passed in Complaint (ULP) No.635 of 1999 and Revision Application No.108 to the extent they decide that the enquiries instituted against the petitioner were conducted in a fair and : 5 : proper manner. vii) The finding regarding fairness of the enquiry will be binding on the petitioner in the fresh complaint that may be filed in revision application filed pursuant from that complaint. 5. The petitioner undertakes to withdraw the pending complaint by 24.8.2007. 6. In view of this, Writ Petition No.4047 of 2007 is disposed of.