1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1734 OF 1997 Subhash Ramchandra Dumbre ...Petitioner vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.R. Nargolkar for the Petitioner. Mrs.A.P. Purav i/b. Mr.P.H. Murav and Mr.V.P. Sawant and Mrs.N.R. Patankar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 10 , 2009 ORAL ORDER :- 1 By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.24 of 1995. By the said judgment and order dated 7th February, 1996, the Industrial Court was pleased to allow the revision application filed by the respondent herein and the set aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.191 of 2 1987 whereby the Labour Court had directed them to reinstate the complainant to his original post with continuity of service and back wages. 2 Brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was employed by respondent no.1. His services, however, were terminated by order dated 25th September, 1985 on the ground of his absence from duty. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint of unfair labour practices. The Labour Court allowed the complaint and held that no inquiry had been held by the respondent into the misconduct of absence from duty and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself and as such, therefore, the order of termination was illegal. The Labour Court, however, held that the bank did not get the petitioner examined by a doctor. The reason which was given for termination of service was absence from duty for 71 days during the period from 1.7.84 to 11.10.84 and also for the absence from duty for the period from 1989-80 to 1983-84 for 610 3 days. The Labour Court held that the termination of the petitioner on the ground of continued absence amounted to a stigma and as such inquiry was not conducted. The Labour Court also further held that the respondent had not followed the procedure before issuing letter of termination of getting the complainant medically checked by the doctor appointed by the respondent. Further, it was mentioned in the order that the complainant was not intimated about the rejection of leave at any point of time. 3 Shri Nargolkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court had committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. He submitted that the Industrial court had reappreciated the evidence and had allowed the revision application and therefore, the said order was without jurisdiction since the Industrial court had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different 4 conclusion from the one which had been reached by the Labour Court. He further submitted that even assuming that the Industrial Court had right to reappreciate the evidence, the only option which was available for the Industrial Court was to remand the matter back. In support of the said submission, he relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vikas Textiles v. Sarva Shramik Sangh, reported in 1990 I CLR 257 and the judgment in the case of Anand Bihari and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur through its Managing Director and another, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 731. 4 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Industrial Court had set aside the order of the Labour Court since it found that the finding of the Labour Court was perverse. He submitted that in cases where the Industrial Court finds that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse, it can 5 reappreaciate the evidence under revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act. She relied on the following judgments :- 1.Cricket Club of India & Ors. vs. D.R. Shyam & Anr. (2007 III CLR 50 H.C. Bom), 2.Hotel Oberoi Towers vs. Gopal Naidu (2002 (94) FLR 779 H.C. Bom), 3.Vikas Textiles vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh (1990 I CLR 257 H.C.Bom.) 5 The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Perusal of the judgment of the Industrial Court clearly reveals that the Industrial Court had rightly noticed that the finding of the Labour Court was patently perverse. The Labour Court had proceeded on the footing that no inquiry had been held and therefore, the order of termination was illegal since it amounted to stigma. The Industrial Court rightly, in my view, noticed that the question of holding inquiry in the present case did not arise. In the present case, the complainant admittedly was on leave for long period on the ground of illness and 6 as such, the Industrial Court correctly held that the bank was justified in issuing notice of termination by paying compensation of discharge simplicitor and for such a discharge, no inquiry was necessary. The Industrial Court also, in my view, correctly observed that the question of getting the petitioner examined by a doctor on the panel of respondent did not arise since admittedly, the complainant was on leave for long period and the obligation was on the complainant to see whether his leave is sanctioned or there is any balance leave on record and as such, there was no question of getting the complainant examined by a doctor from the panel of the bank. There are number of judgments of this Court wherein it has been held that if the Industrial Court in revision finds that the finding recorded is perverse, it can certainly reappreciate the evidence. He submitted that the Industrial Court ought to have remanded the matter back. The submission made by the petitioner has no substance. The ratio laid down by the judgment placed by the 7 respondent squarely applies to the present case. Hence, there is no merit in the submission made by the petitioner. 6 The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (V.M. KANADE, J.)