( 1 ) wp131-06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 131 OF 2006 1. Suryakant s/o Baburao Patil, R/o post Erandol, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon. 2. Rakesh s/o Pradeep Deshmukh, R/o Shankarappa Nagar, Pimprala, Taluka and Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Prafulla s/o Bharat Patil, R/o 7, Raghukul, Behind M.J. College, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 4. Kum. Pratibha Bhagwan Raising, Room No. 10, S.T. Colony, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 5. Shrikrushna Dyandeo Thorat, R/o Ashok Nagar, Jamner, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon. 6. Sunil Bhalchandra Badgujar, R/o Room No. 14, 15, R.K. Patel Nagar, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon. 7. Swapnil Murlidhar Yeole, R/o at present Ranjangaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 8. Vilas s/o Ramdas Lahase, R/o Shikshak Colony, Utkheda Road, Raver, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon. 9. Sandeep s/o Rajaram Vanjari, R/o Post Hatgaon, Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 10. Sandeep s/o Ashok Sapkal, R/o Siddharth Vasthigruha, Near M.J. College, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 11. Nilesh s/o Satyavan Patil, R/o at post Khedgaon (Nandiche), Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon. PETITIONERS ( 2 ) wp131-06 VERSUS 1. Jalgaon Jilha S.T. Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Jalgaon, through its Secretary, Tukaram s/o Baburao Choudhari, R/o Plot No. 49, 44/1, Shiv Colony, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Jalgaon Jilha S.T. Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Jalgaon, through its Chairman, Rajendra Purushottam Chaudhari, R/o as above. RESPONENTS .... Mr. V.Y. Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Joshi, advocate for the respondent No. 1. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th January, 2011] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgement and order rendered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in revision application (ULP) No. 1/2005. By that judgement, the Industrial Court allowed the revision application and was pleased to set aside the judgement and order dated 29-11-2004 rendered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, whereby notices dated 20-09-2004 were quashed and the respondents were directed to desist from adopting unfair labour practices of terminating the services of the petitioner on basis of the said notices. ( 3 ) wp131-06 The respondents were restrained from causing illegal termination of the petitioners by the Labour Court. However, by the impugned judgement and order, the Industrial Court declamped such injunction order. 2. It is important to notice that the order of the Labour Court was stayed by the Industrial Court as per the interim stay order dated 1st December, 2005. The time was further extended till 11th January, 2006 by order dated 23rd December, 2005. It appears, however, that in the meanwhile, the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the stay was operating. 3. The respondents are the Secretary and Chairman of the Jalgaon District S.T. Kamgar Sahakari Patpedhi Limited. They represent the Cooperative Credit Society. The members of the Credit Society are employees of the M.S.R.T.C. There were vacant posts of Clerk and Peons. The respondents, therefore, recruited the petitioners after approval of the competent authority. It appears that a Selection Committee was formed, the petitioners were interviewed alongwith other candidates and thereafter, the appointment orders were issued in their favour. There is no dispute about the fact that the ( 4 ) wp131-06 petitioners worked on the posts of Clerk/Peon for approximately one and half (1 & 1/2) year after the initial appointments. There is also no dispute about the fact that there was change in the nomenclature of the elected Body of the Cooperative Credit Society i.e. the Managing Committee. the newly elected Managing Committee, after taking over the charge of the affairs, noticed that the appointments of the petitioners were irregular. The Managing Committee, therefore, directed issuance of notices to the petitioners, calling upon them as to why their services be not terminated. The petitioners challenged the said notices by filing complaint applications (ULP) No. 68 to 78 of 2004. The Labour Court allowed their applications. As stated earlier, the Industrial Court was pleased to set aside the common judgement and order of the Labour Court. 4. Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the record & proceedings with their assistance. 5. Perusal of the record & proceedings would show that initial appointments of the petitioners were effected in accordance with the directions of the competent authority. It does appear, no doubt, that there were certain irregularities ( 5 ) wp131-06 committed by the erstwhile Managing Committee in appointing some of the petitioners. For example, one of them i.e. Suryakant Patil was over-aged, yet, was appointed. It also appears that the petitioners were related to the then Chairman of the Managing Committee. It may be inferred that proper procedure was not adopted while appointing the petitioners. Needless to say, their initial appointments could be challenged by the newly elected Managing Committee before the appropriate forum. The subject of the appointments of the petitioners could be dealt with by challenging the resolution of such appointment before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the MCS Act"). The newly elected Managing Committee simply issued the show-cause notices calling upon the petitioners as to why their services should not be terminated. It is also not a case that the petitioners were appointed on probation and were shunted out due to dis-satisfactory performance. The newly elected Managing Committee did not challenge the legality of the appointment orders by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent authority as envisaged under section 78 of the MCS Act. Nor the appointments were repudiated by adopting a resolution. ( 6 ) wp131-06 6. The Industrial Court was required to deal with revision under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "the MRTU & PULP Act"). The scope of such revision is rather limited. The revisional authority is expected to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in order to rectify patent errors or remove the patent defects or to set aside the orders which are arbitrary or perverse as such. The revisional authority cannot , in ordinary course, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, re-appreciate the evidence. It appears from the impugned judgement that the revisional Court re-appreciated the entire evidence. The learned Member of the Industrial Court observed that the recruitment procedure was not followed scrupulously. The question is as to who had challenged the recruitment procedure before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court observed : "It cannot be said that if at all any previous body acted adversely then new body which has been taken over, can not enquire regarding illegality or irregularities of the same. But in the present case, it can be said that the act of the previous body regarding the appointments of the present ( 7 ) wp131-06 respondents i.e. original complainants is basically erroneous, illegal or irregular but only the show- cause notice has been issued, any management can not be restrained from taking recourse against the workers concerned as per the provisions of law and by following due procedure as laid down in the respective laws applicable in the present case." 7. There appears confusion in the mind of the learned Judge of the Industrial Court as regards the nature of the contemplated action undertaken against the petitioners. The show-cause notices were issued to them with a view to terminate their services. The show-cause notices were issued without passing any resolution that the appointments were irregular or illegal. Nor, the illegalities of such appointments were brought to the notice of any competent authority seeking termination of the services of the petitioners. The Industrial Court, in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, ought not to have considered the issue regarding illegalities committed by the erstwhile Managing Committee, while appointing the petitioners, in absence of any resolution of the newly elected Managing ( 8 ) wp131-06 Committee or finding of the competent authority under the MCS Act in this behalf. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to forego the demand for backwages for the period they have not worked. It would be equitable, therefore, to restore the judgement of the Labour Court and the reinstatement of the petitioners on the same posts without grant of any backwages. It is pertinent to notice that they have been terminated notwithstanding the interim stay of the Industrial Court. So also, this Court directed that the posts occupied by the petitioners shall not be filled in on regular basis without leave of this Court. It is explicit that in view of the interim order dated 26th April, 2006, the posts are still lying vacant. The result is that the administrative defects of the respondents are rather continued. In this view of the matter, it would be legal and proper to direct reinstatement of the petitioners on the posts which were occupied by each of them, without grant of any backwages. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement and order of the Industrial Court is set ( 9 ) wp131-06 aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners on the respective posts occupied by each of them, within period of four (4) months hereafter and without grant of backwages. There will be no order as to costs. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp131-06