1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3429 OF 2007. Raju Mahadeorao Ganjre, aged 38 years, Occupation Nil, r/o Shewati, Taluka Karanja, District Washim. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. President, Zilla Parishad Primary Teachers Credit Co-operative Society, Akola, Regd. No.118, Behind Head Post Office, Akola. 2. The Akola District Zilla Parishad Primary Teachers Co-operative Credit Society, Regd.No.118, Akola, through its Administrative President. 3. The Washim District Zilla Parishad Primary Teachers Co-operative Credit Society, Regd.No.301, Washim, through its Administrative President, Washim. ... RESPONDENTS .... Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.H. Patil, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the respondent No.3. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri A.H. Patil, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri A.M. Ghare, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned labour Court, Akola dated 31st July, 2006 in Complaint (ULP) No.201/1998 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present petitioner and the order dated 19th April, 2007 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Akola in Revision Application (ULP) No. 98/2006 thereby dismissing the revision filed by the present petitioner. 3. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Akola, it would reveal that the learned Industrial Court has observed that the revision-petitioner is 3 working as Branch Manager with the respondents. It is not disputed by any of the parties that the petitioner was never working as Branch Manager but working as a Clerk. It can further be seen from the order impugned that the learned Industrial Court has referred in the order that the petitioner was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was never charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is informed that two employees were charge sheeted. One was the Branch Manager and another was the present petitioner, who was working as a Clerk. It, therefore, appears that the learned Industrial Court has mixed the facts in one matter with the facts in another matter. As such, it could clearly be seen that the order impugned passed by the learned Industrial Court suffers from non application of mind. 5. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the 4 petition. The order dated 19th April, 2007 passed by the learned Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 98/2006 is quashed and set aside. The revision is remitted back to the learned Industrial Court, Akola. The learned Industrial Court is directed to expedite the revision and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.