(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 2011 Larsen & Toubro Limited, A-9 & A-10, M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar (Through General Manager). .. Petitioner. versus Shrirang Laxman Lande, R/o. Block No.1, Civil Hudco, Ahmednagar. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. D.J. Bhanage, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner / employer. (2) 2. The Labour Court in a ULP Complaint, challenging dismissal after departmental inquiry, decided preliminary issue regarding departmental inquiry and held that the inquiry was fair and proper. The employee then approached the Industrial Court in revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1971"). The Industrial Court after noticing that the Counsel for revision applicant (employee) was not heard in the matter, has remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. 3. Mr. D.J. Bhanage, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nanuram Mohanlal Verma and another (2002 (1) L.L.N. 913), to urge that the Industrial Court could not have interfered with in revision in such matter. He is also relying upon several other judgments, including judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. B.P. Mundhe (1975(2) L.L.N. 321), in support of his contention. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further states that the Labour Court gave so many opportunities (3) to Counsel for the respondent / employee and when those opportunities were not utilized, the Labour Court proceeded further. The discretion exercised by the Labour Court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse and the Industrial Court ought not have interfered in the matter under Section 44 of the Act of 1971. According to him, the Labour Court had after appreciation of entire material produced before it, i.e. record of departmental inquiry, has arrived at the conclusion. He further states that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner because of undue interference. 5. The Industrial Court has found inconsistency in the order delivered by the Labour Court. In the Roznama, the Labour Court has mentioned that it heard the arguments of the Counsel for employee, while the order sheet did not support it. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court, also show that the Counsel for respondent was not heard. It is, therefore, apparent that the contention, that the Labour Counsel exercised discretion available to it in one way, cannot be accepted. 6. The Industrial Court has only placed entire controversy back before the Labour Court. In view of these facts, I do not find it necessary to consider the ratio of the (4) judgments on which learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. The petition is, therefore, not entertained. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, all contentions of the petitioner are kept open for consideration before the Labour Court. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp496