1 W.P.No.9576 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9576 OF 2010 Shri Bapu s/o Pundlik Gite, Age 49 years, Occu.Ex-employee, R/o Wanjar Galli, Sakri, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule ..PETITIONER VERSUS Dhule District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dhule District Dhule Through its Manager, Head Office, Shivaji Road, Dhule ..RESPONDENT Mr A.S.Sawant, Advocate for petitioner Mr Shrikant Patil, Advocate for respondent-sole CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Rule was issued on 13.1.2011. The order under challenge was stayed by this Court. 2. The petitioner, an employee of the Bank objects judgment and order recorded by the learned Member, Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.24/2009 dated 1.7.2010 whereby the proceedings are remitted to the learned Judge, Labour Court for deciding the complaint of the petitioner afresh. 3 The learned Member, Industrial Court felt that it was incumbent for the learned Judge to have framed a preliminary issue in respect of fairness of inquiry and perversity of findings. For arriving on such 2 W.P.No.9576 of 2010 assertion, the learned Judge has referred to the judgments of Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 1900, The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v.P.P.Mundhe and also to the judgment in the matter of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. V. Ludh Budh Singh, reported in AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 1031. Unfortunately, the learned Member, Industrial Court did not consider the guidelines illustrated in the later judgment as reflected in para 60 thereof. For the purposes of present petition, paragraph 5 of said guidelines is imperative to be quoted and to be followed by either the Labour Judge or by the Member, Industrial Court. “(5) The management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal. But the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has been availed of or asked for by the management, before the proceedings are closed, the employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether the proceedings have been held properly and the findings recorded therein are also proper.” This position as was mandated by the Supreme Court was reiterated by this Court in another judgment in the matter of Chandikaprasad Mishra V. Shree Babulnath Mandir Charities & Anr., reported in 2000 II CLR 121. The matter was sent back to the learned Member, Industrial Court. 4. In yet another matter, in Writ Petition No.6297 of 2010 (Ashok Vs. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dhule), in 3 W.P.No.9576 of 2010 identically placed situation, this Court by its judgment dated 29.9.2010 approved the stand taken by the learned Member, Industrial Court in remitting the matter back to the Labour Court and consequently, such orders were quashed and set aside. 5. It was expected of the learned Member, Industrial Court to have decided the revision on all the counts instead of remitting the matter on bare observation that it is lacking of framing preliminary issue. There was also avenues to challenge order of the Labour Court, which are not dealt with and consequently, the order calls for interference. 6. The matter is remitted to the learned Member, Industrial Court to decide all the issues raised in the revision. Considering the length of time already spent in attending the matter expeditiously, hearing will be given in a time bound schedule. 7. Heard. Considering the grounds raised in the revision and even the orders of the learned Judge, Labour Court, the orders of the learned Judge, Labour Court are stayed till disposal of the revision. Rule made absolute. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (vvr/9576.10wp)