1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4506/2009 (Aluminium Metal Powers Kamgar Sangh VERSUS Mah. Metal Powers Ltd.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.M. Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.B. Puranik, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner-Union impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara on 07.10.2009 dismissing a revision filed by the petitioner-Union and allowing the other revision filed by the respondent- company. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that after the passing of the order by the Industrial Court on 07.10.2009, the respondent has dismissed the employees represented by the petitioner-Union. The petitioner-Union had challenged the show cause notice issued by one Mr. Lalit Bhandari before the Labour Court in a complaint on the ground that the enquiry was not fair and proper and Mr. Lalit Bhandari, who had issued a show cause notice was a judge in his own 2 cause. The Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper but, Mr. Lalit Bhandari was acting as Judge in his own cause. The petitioner preferred a revision against the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. The Industrial Court rejected the revision filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 07.10.2009 on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to challenge an order of the Court and not a finding of the Court when the interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. The approach of the Industrial Court in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner is just and proper as it is a well settled position of law that a party aggrieved can challenge an order passed by a Court and not a mere finding which goes against him. The judgments reported in 2002(6) SCC 1 and 2004(3) SCC 214 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In fact, the judgment reported in 2008(12) SCC 1 clearly applies to the facts of this case. Even otherwise, it is a well settled position of law as a party cannot challenge a mere adverse finding and a party can challenge only an adverse order which is passed against it. 3 Even otherwise, it would not be in the interest of justice in view of the subsequent developments to consider the correctness or otherwise by the order passed by the Industrial Court on 07.10.2009 as the same is passed in the revisions challenging the grant of interim orders in a complaint filed by the petitioner challenging the effect of the show cause notice issued by Mr. Lalit Bhandari. It is not in dispute that after the passing of the order by the Inudstrial Court on 07.10.2009, the services of the employees under the petitioner-Union have been terminated and the petitioner- Union can as well challenge the termination order by the complaint. The challenge to the effect of the show cause notice has been rendered infructuous in view of the passing of the orders of dismissal against the employees under the petitioner-Union. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner, that challenging the dismissal order and seeking interim relief would consume a lot of time and, therefore, it is necessary for this Court to decide this writ petition, is liable to be rejected. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner can as well avail this remedy though an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 22, is also rejected. The petitioner is free to challenge the 4 order of termination and seek the interim orders in those proceedings. It is, however, needless to mention that the observations made by the Labour and the Industrial Court in the orders dated 15.01.2009 and 07.10.2009 respectively cannot prejudice the case of either of the parties and the Courts should not be influenced by the said orders while deciding the complaint against the dismissal as these orders are passed only while considering the question of grant or refusal of interim relief to the petitioner at the interlocutory stage. Since nothing survives in this petition in view of the aforesaid position, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE