1 wp 1957.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1957 OF 2011 Devidas Dagdu Kahane, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Ward No. 1, Godhwani, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Sarjepura, Kotla, Ahmednagar through Divisional Controller. 2. Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Shrirampur Depot, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri M. K. Goyanka, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4656 OF 2011 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Ahmednagar Division, Ahmednagar through it's Divisional Controller, Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner 2 wp 1957.11 Versus 1. Devidas Dagdu Kahane, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Ward No. 1, Godhwani, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Depot Manager (Enquiry Officer), MSRTC, Shrirampur Depot, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondent Shri M. K. Goyanka, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. Shri Goyanka, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4656/2011 states that the respondent No. 2 is a formal party. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1957/2011 is referred as employee and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4656/2011 is 3 wp 1957.11 referred as employer. The employee was serving with the employer corporation as helper since 1982. The employer terminated the services of the employee after conducting the Departmental Enquiry on 08 th July, 1999. The employee challenged the said order of termination by filing Complaint ULP No. 79/1999. The said complaint was partly allowed by the Labour Court. The reinstatement was granted to the employee as a fresh employee. The said order of Labour Court was assailed by the employer and employee before the Industrial Court by filing two separate revisions. The Industrial Court vide the impugned order partly allowed both the revisions and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and remanded back the matter to the Labour Court. Aggrieved thereby the employee and employer both have filed the present writ petitions. 4. Shri Goyanka, the learned counsel for the employer submits that when all the material was on record, the Industrial Court should have decided the matter on its own merits and there was no need to remand the matter back to the Labour Court. It was nobodies case that the Labour Court has not granted proper opportunity to adduce evidence. When the evidence documentary as well as oral was before the revisional 4 wp 1957.11 Court, the revisional Court should have decided the matter on its own merits. The learned counsel contends that the Industrial Court be directed to decide the revision on its own merits. The learned counsel further contends that as the Industrial Court had set aside the judgment of the Labour Court, the directions given by the Labour Court to reinstate the employee as a fresh employee also stands set aside and as such, the corporation was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner which he had joined pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court. 5. Shri Barde, the learned counsel for the employee submits that it was agitated by the employee that the Labour Court has not framed proper issues. The Labour Court has also not considered the evidence regarding back wages and reinstatement from the date of termination. The employee had joined the services pursuant to the order of Labour Court in the year 2003 and after nine years the employee was abruptly terminated only on the ground that matter is remanded back to the Labour Court thereby terminating the services of the employee. 6. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. It is a fact that pursuant to the orders passed by 5 wp 1957.11 the Labour Court the employee was taken into service as a fresh employee. As such, when the Industrial Court had come to the conclusion to remand the matter back to the Labour Court, it should have maintained the position as on date. The employer could have taken necessary action after the Labour Court had decided the matter on its own merits. 7. Be that as it may, the Industrial Court has observed the anomalies in the judgment of the Labour Court and has remanded the matter to the Labour Court for deciding it afresh as per the directions given in the said judgment. The said order would not be prejudicial to the either of the parties. In the result the writ petitions are not entertained so far as the orders impugned are concerned. 8. The employee was taken up in the service in the year 2003 and continued till the year 2011. The employment of the employee needs to be protected till the Labour Court decides the matter on its own merits. In that light of the matter, the order terminating the services of the employee in view of the judgment passed by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside. The employee shall be deemed to have joined the services pursuant to 6 wp 1957.11 the orders of the Labour Court and as per the terms laid down by the Labour Court as a fresh employee subject to final decision of the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six (6) months from today. 9. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of, however, with no order as to costs. The Rule is made absolute with above observation. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11