1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4633 of 2011 Madhukar Balaji Bante Vs. Shriram Steel Industries/Naresh Engineering Works. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.S. Charpe, Adv. for the petitioner. Ms. K.K. Pathak, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 13 th October, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 18.07.2011, reversing an order passed by the Labour Court in a complaint filed by the petitioner and remanding the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on merits. The petitioner is the original complainant. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against one Shreeram Steel Industries/Naresh Engineering Works through its proprietor Shri Ramlal Soni. According to the petitioner, he was working with the respondent company since 1974 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 13.2.1986. The petitioner sought the relief of reinstatement with back wages. The respondent filed the reply and pleaded that Shreeram Steel Industries and Naresh Engineering Wroks were two different establishments. It was pleaded by the respondent that Naresh Engineering Works had been closed down since 1.1.1987 and the 2 complainant was an employee of Naresh Engineering Works only. It was pleaded that Shreeram Steel Industries had no connection with the petitioner-complainant. In this background, the respondent sought for the dismissal of the complaint. The parties tendered evidence and on an appreciation of the same the Labour Court allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent to reinstate the complainant either in Shreeram Steel Industries or Naresh Engineering Works with continuity in service and full back wages. While deciding the complaint, the Labour Court failed to decide the application at Exh. 48, filed by the respondent for dismissal of the complaint as the complaint was filed against two concerns which were separate and distinct. Though it was stated in the application that Shreeram Steel Industries was a partnership concern and Naresh Engineering Works was a proprietory concern, and the proprietor of Naresh Engineering Works had expired in 1991 and the company was closed in the year 1987, the Labour Court did not decide the application and the issues involved therein. The Labour Court also failed to consider whether an employee could have claimed to be the employee of two concerns, one proprietary and the other partnership, at the same time. Merely by observing that the petitioner-complainant was working in both the concerns, the Labour Court allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner and granted the relief sought by him. Since the Labour Court had not decided whether the two establishments were distinct and separate or one was the unit of the other, the Industrial Court thought it fit to remand the matter to the Labour Court to decide the issue on the evidence available on record and also the evidence which may be tendered by the parties on the aforesaid issue involved. The Industrial Court was of the 3 view that it could not be accepted that a person would work in two establishments at the same time and the Labour Court could direct the respondent-establishment to reinstate the complainant in either of the establishments. Since the petitioner had never claimed that M/s Shreeram Steel Industries and Naresh Engineering Works were the units of one and the same establishment and since the respondent had pleaded that the two establishments were distinct and separate, it was necessary for the Labour Court to decide the said issue. It appears that in the aforesaid background the Industrial Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court to decide the complaint afresh on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the issue which was directed to be decided by the Labour Court. The judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 18.7.2011 remanding the matter to the Labour Court does not appear to be perverse or illegal. The Labour Court should decide the aforesaid issue along with the other issues after permitting the parties to amend the pleadings, if required, and to tender evidence, if any. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.