1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.620 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.750 OF 2007 M/s Navbharat Press Ltd. ...Appellants v/s Mr Santosh Chaturvedi and ors. ...Respondents Mr M.M. Verma i/b Mr Santosh S. Shetty for Appellants. Mr Rahul Nerlekar for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATE : 30TH JUNE 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] This appeal takes exception to the order dated 16th July 2007 passed in writ petition No.750 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The relevant facts are that the respondents filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Practices Act 1971 before the Labour Court. That complaint was decided by the Labour Court by order dated 13th February 2006. The operative part of the order reads as under :- 1)The complaint is allowed. 2) It is hereby declared that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice under item No.1(f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and they are directed to cease and desist the same. 3) The respondents are hereby directed to 3 reinstate the complainant in service with effect from 13.10.2001 with 50 % back wages. 4) The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 500/- as costs of the complaint. The respondent No.1 was granted reinstatement in service with 50 % back wages. Both the parties to the complaint felt aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court. Therefore, two revisions were field before the Industrial Court viz. revision application (ULP) No.50 of 2006 and revision application (ULP) No.118 of 2006. Both these revision applications were decided by a common judgment by the Industrial Court by order dated 2nd December 2006. The operative part of the order of the Industrial Court reads as under :- i) Revision application (ULP) No.50/06 filed by the respondent-employer is hereby dismissed whereas revision application 4 (ULP) No.118/06 filed by the complainant- employee is hereby allowed. ii) The respondent employer is liable to pay full back wages to the complainant employee w.e.f. 13.10.2001 and further directed to pay the balance amount after deducting the payment already deposited/paid to the complainant-employee. iii) In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Thus, the Industrial Court modified the order passed by the Labour Court and directed the employer to pay full back wages instead of 50 % back wages which was ordered to be paid by the Labour Court. Writ petition No.750 of 2007 was filed in this Court challenging both the orders. Prayer clause (a) of that petition reads as under :- (a) that a writ of certiorari or any 5 other writ, order or direction be issued, calling for the records and files in respect of the impugned orders dated 13.2.2006 and 2.12.2006 and after examining the legality and validity of the impugned judgments dated 13.2.2006 and 2.12.2006, be pleased to quash and set aside the same. 2] The learned Single Judge decided writ petition by order dated 16th July 2007. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. The learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from non- application of mind to the record because the learned Single Judge proceeds to decide the petition as if it is directed only against the order of the Labour Court. In the entire length and breadth of the order, the learned Single Judge neither refers to the fact that two revision applications were preferred to the Industrial Court nor does he refer to the order passed by the Industrial Court. 6 3] We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents. He also submitted that it does appear from the order that the order of the Industrial Court has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. We have perused the record. In paragraph 2 of the order, the learned Single Judge observes This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2006 rendered by the Second Labour Court allowing a complaint filed by the respondent/employee .... . Perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shows that he proceeded as if parties had gone only to the Labour Court and they have approached to the High Court only against the order of the Labour Court. He totally excludes from consideration the fact that the Industrial Court has modified the order passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent  workman. 4] It appears from the judgment that the submissions were made in relation to that part of the order by which back wages have been allowed. 7 The learned Single Judge refers to that argument and reject the argument without referring to the fact that the Labour Court had allowed only 50 % of the back wages and the Industrial Court modified that order. It is clear to our mind that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from non- application of mind to relevant material on record viz. The order of the Industrial Court. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 5] The appeal is allowed, order dated 16th July 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.750 of 2007 is set aside. That writ petition is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for hearing and decision in accordance with law. Appeal is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. 8 Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA)