(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9280 OF 2010 1. The President, Osmanabad District Postal Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Parmar Building, Sawarkar Chauk, At Post : Taluka & Dist. Osmanabad. 2. The Secretary, Osmanabad District Postal Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Parmar Building, Sawarkar Chauk, At Post : Taluka & Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioners. versus Keshav Sopan Ghogare, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Uple (M), Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. V.R. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23RD MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.R. Jain, for the petitioners, and Adv. Mr. S.B. Bhosale, for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. The petitioner terminated respondent without holding any departmental inquiry and Labour Court granted him interim reinstatement in ULP Complaint No. 41/2006. That reinstatement continued till 6-3-2010. Then complaint was dismissed. Thereafter, the Industrial Court has allowed his revision on 10-8-2010. With the result, respondent today continues in service. 4. Contention of Adv. Mr. Jain is, several opportunities to improve were given to the respondent and when he failed to show any improvement, he was terminated. He invites attention to appointment order dated 1-8-1994 to urge that it was purely in temporary capacity. He further points out that in addition to (3) this, the respondent was free to work elsewhere and accordingly he was working as Pigmy Agent. 5. He contends that in this view of the matter, judgment of the Industrial Court in favour of respondent is unsustainable. In the alternative and without prejudice, he states that those chances given to the respondent to improve are already proved on record of the Labour Court. 6. Adv. Mr. Bhosale contends that the respondent has worked from 1994 to 2006 i.e. for more than 12 years and even today he is in the employment. He further points out that in the written statement, no leave to prove misconduct was sought and Labour Court has not exercised jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law. He, therefore, requests the court to dismiss the petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent is now nearing the age of superannuation. In this view of the matter and because of serious nature of allegations, it was felt proper to give petitioner / employer to prove his conduct before Labour Court, provided respondent is continued in the employment during pendency of those proceedings. (4) 8. Adv. Mr. Bhosale, for the respondent, has no objection for this course of action. Adv. Mr. Jain, for the petitioners, states that the petitioners will prove misconduct before the Labour Court. 9. In view of this consent, only with a view to enable the petitioners to prove misconduct before the Labour Court, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The order dated 6-3-2010, passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Latur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 41/2006, thereby dismissing complaint of the respondent, is quashed and set aside. That complaint is restored back to the file of Labour Court for taking fresh decision in the matter. The petitioner / employer shall be allowed to lead necessary evidence to prove misconduct and after that, the present respondent shall be allowed to lead evidence in defence, if necessary. However, petitioners shall continue respondent in service during pendency of ULP Complaint and subject to its decision. (ii) The Labour Court shall decide Complaint (ULP) No. 41/2006 on its own merits, as early as possible and in any case, (5) within a period of six months from the date on which parties appear before it. (iii) As the judgment of Labour Court is quashed and set aside, it is apparent that subsequent judgment dated 10-8-2010, delivered by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Latur, in Revision (ULP) No. 14/2010, impugned in this petition, also stands quashed and set aside. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Latur, on 11th April 2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9280