wp270-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.270 OF 2011 M/s.Laxmi Electrical & Mechanical Works .. Petitioner Versus Mr.Yeshwant R. Rane & Anr. .. Respondent Mr.R.S.Pai for the petitioner. Mr.Mahendra Agavekar i/by Rajesh Gehani for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Pai for petitioner. The challenge is to the order passed by the President, Industrial Court in a Revision Application (ULP) No.246 of 2009 in Complaint ULP No.291 of 2004. 2] The revision application was filed by the first respondent employee – original complainant challenging the order passed by the Labour Court answering the preliminary issue against him. The complaint proceeds to allege that the termination of the said employee pursuant to a charge of misconduct allegedly proved in the domestic enquiry, is unfair labour practice within the meaning of the items in the schedule referred to in the complaint. At the hearing of the complaint, issues were framed wp270-11.doc 2 inter alia about the fairness of the procedure adopted in the enquiry and whether the findings rendered therein are perverse. 3] On 15th September 2009, two issues being issue Nos. 2 and 3 were treated as preliminary issues and came to be answered in favour of the petitioner employer and against the respondent employee. Aggrieved thereby, the revision application had been filed by the employee and the learned President by the impugned order has held that the finding of the labour court on the said preliminary issues is unsatisfactory. 4] Mr.Pai appearing for petitioner submits that the revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances when there is failure of justice. If the impugned order is not termed as perverse and merely because reasoning appears to be unsatisfactory is no ground to interfere in the limited jurisdiction conferred by section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & PULP Act. Consequently, the revision application should not have been entertained and allowed. The industrial court has committed an error apparent on the face of record in entertaining the Revision. wp270-11.doc 3 5] With the assistance of Mr.Pai, I have perused the order of the labour court and industrial court. The labour court in the reasoning part of this order from paras 5 to 8 has referred to the fact that the petitioner afforded opportunity to the first respondent employee and, therefore, the conduct of the enquiry was not vitiated either by breach of the principles of natural justice or violation of provisions contained in the model standing orders. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, thereafter, has not referred to any part of the oral and documentary evidence but rendered a finding that the enquiry officer’s report is not perverse. 6] To my mind, in the peculiar facts of this case, reading of the order passed by the industrial court does not indicate that the revisional jurisdiction was exercised only because the order of the labour court was unsatisfactory. The learned President exercised the said jurisdiction because he was satisfied that the preliminary issues were not decided as required by law. It was obligatory on the part of the labour court to have referred to not only the procedural aspects but what was the evidence and how the charges were held to be proved, when he concluded that there was no perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In the order of the labour court, this course has not been adopted and, therefore, the wp270-11.doc 4 reasoning was inadequate and unsatisfactory and rightly termed as such. In these circumstances and in facts peculiar to this case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction as the learned President of Industrial Court has exercised the Revisional Jurisdiction in accordance with law. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or error apparent as contended and on a reading of the entire order, it is apparent that had the industrial court not stepped in that would have occasioned failure of justice. In these circumstances, the petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly. 7] However, it is clarified that none of the observations of the learned President of the Industrial Court in the impugned order shall influence the Judge to whom the complaint has been assigned and he will render his decision on the preliminary issues Nos.2 and 3 afresh and without being influenced by the earlier order dated 15th September 2009 or any observations therein. Similarly it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions and they are kept open for being raised before the labour court. 8] The apprehension that is expressed before me by Mr.Pai is also wp270-11.doc 5 not well founded. If the preliminary issues are answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent No.1 complainant, then, needless to state that going by the settled principles the labour court is bound to afford opportunity to petitioner to prove the misconduct by leading evidence in court. That opportunity is implicit and inherent after the petitioner’s stand in the written statement is perused, in case, the said findings are adverse to the petitioner. With this additional clarification also there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. Petition dismissed. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)