1 1-wp-6738-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6738 OF 2010 Shri Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkahna Ltd. .. Petitioner. V/s. Shri Popat R. Naiknaware .. Respondent. Mr. K.S. Bapat i/b. M/s. Desai and Desai Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Shah, for the Respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 3rd AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 By this Petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Original Respondent-employee challenges the order dated 7th April, 2010 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur in Revision (ULP) No. 43 of 2000 holding that in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v/s. Shri Nanuram Verma & Others, reported in 2 1-wp-6738-2010.sxw 2001 – LAB I. C. 1536, revision is not maintainable. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Labour Court by its order dated 23rd September, 1999 on preliminary issue held that enquiry made against Respondent- Original Complainant was not conducted in fair, proper and legal manner keeping in view the principles of natural justice and even the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse. 4 Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the Petitioner preferred Revision (ULP) No.43 of 2000 under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Member of Industrial Court, Solapur without considering the merits of the case, rejected their Revision Application only on the ground that same is not maintainable in view of the order of this Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 7th April, 2010 is not sustainable in law. 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently opposed the present Petition. He submits that the Industrial Court has considered the Revision Application on its own merits and decided the same. 3 1-wp-6738-2010.sxw 6 I have gone through the impugned order dated 7th April, 2010 and the authorities relied by the Industrial Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra). One thing is clear that the Industrial Court, Solapur erred in coming to the conclusion that the Revision Application under Section 44 of the said Act is not maintainable. On perusal of paragraph 16 of the authority in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra), it is clear that the Revision is maintainable. Paragraph 16 of the said authority reads thus:- “Para – 16:- In the instant case, though respondent No.1 was dismissed from service in the year 1992 and approached the Labour Court immediately thereafter, the dispute is yet not settled finally by the Labour Court and petitioner is trying to delay the final settlement by challenging the order passed by the Labour Court at the interlocutory stage. It is, however, true that under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, remedy of revision is provided before the Industrial Court. However, on the basis of the same analogy, where this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution should refuse to exercise jurisdiction against such interlocutory order, applies to the Industrial Court in case of revision under Section 44 of the Act. It is no doubt true that though Industrial Court does have revisional power in view of above referred Section of the Act, however, for the similar reasons stated hereinabove. Industrial Court was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of revision moved by the petitioner at the interlocutory stage and on preliminary issue.” 4 1-wp-6738-2010.sxw 7 In view of the above, law laid down by this Court which applies to the facts of the present matter, the Industrial Court, Solapur erred in coming to the conclusion that the Revision is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur dated 7th April, 2010 in Revision (ULP) No.43 of 2000 is set aside. Matter is remand to the Industrial Court, Solapur to decide the same, on merits. On considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, Industrial Court is directed to decide the Revision Application No.43 of 2000 as early as possible, but in any case, within three months on receipt of copy of this order. 7 Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 8 Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (K.K.TATED, J.)