WP/6833 & 6855/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6833 OF 2010 The Chairman, Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Satara & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Shankar Keshav Gaikwad .. Respondent ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6855 OF 2010 The Chairman, Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Satara & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Chandrakant Sarjerao Babar .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Pakale i/b. Mr. K.J. Phakade for the Petitioners. Mr. M.N. Malunjkar for the Respondents. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed against the orders of the Labour Court, Satara as well as the Industrial Court, Satara passed on 27th July, 2010 and on 31st July, 2010 & 20th August, 2010 respectively. The applications of the petitioners for leading evidence WP/6833 & 6855/2010 2 before the Labour Court, after the enquiry was held to be improper, have been rejected. 2. The respondents-workmen had challenged their termination from service before the Labour Court. The enquiries held against them were found to be vitiated by the Labour Court on 29th August, 2009. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed Revision Applications before the Industrial Court on 7th October, 2009. Admittedly, the Industrial Court had not granted a stay of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, therefore, decided to continue with the complaints. This was because in the Writ Petitions filed before this Court against the interim order passed by the Labour Court, this Court had directed the Labour Court to decide the complaints expeditiously and in any case within 12 months from the next date of hearing. Since the petitioners did not lead any evidence before the Labour Court on the specious plea that the Revision Applications were pending, the Labour Court closed the evidence with respect to the misconduct on 13th January, 2010. The matter was then adjourned for leading evidence on other issues such as back-wages etc. The respondents WP/6833 & 6855/2010 3 were expected to lead evidence on 10th March, 2010. Since the matter could not be disposed of within the stipulated period, this Court extended the time to dispose of the complaints by three months. On 3rd May, 2010, the Labour Court permitted the petitioners to adduce evidence. Thereafter on 2nd July, 2010, two applications were filed by the petitioners at Exhibits 80 and 82. The application at Exhibit 80 was for permission to adduce evidence and the one at Exhibit 82 was for permission to pay costs as imposed by the Labour Court by its order dated 3rd May, 2010. The application at Exhibit 80 for leading evidence was rejected by the Labour Court on 3rd July, 2010. The application at Exhibit 82 was also rejected. Thereafter a Revision Application was filed by the petitioners against the order rejecting both these applications. The Revision Application was heard and the applications were remanded to the Labour Court for considering them afresh. On remand, the application at Exhibit 80 was rejected again. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred a Revision Application before the Industrial Court. This Revision Application was rejected on 31st WP/6833 & 6855/2010 4 July, 2010, as not maintainable. The petitioners were directed to take necessary steps in the Labour Court, Satara. The petitioners then filed applications at Exhibits 85 and 86. These applications were for a review of the orders passed at Exhibits 80 and 82. The Review Application was dismissed by the Labour Court and hence the present Writ Petitions. 3. It is surprising that the petitioners have not preferred a Revision Application against the decision of the Labour Court dismissing the applications at Exhibits 85 and 86 and have instead rushed to this Court. 4. This Court had granted time to the Labour Court upto 31st October, 2010 to dispose of the Complaints (ULP) No.36 of 2004 and 35 of 2004 respectively. According to Mr. Pakale, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have failed to deposit the costs through oversight. He submits that in law the petitioners would be entitled to lead evidence to justify their actions in terminating services of the respondents once the enquiry is found to be vitiated. He further submits that in any event since the time has WP/6833 & 6855/2010 5 been extended upto 31st October, 2010 for completion of the trial, the petitioners be granted liberty to lead the evidence on such terms and conditions as this Court finds fit. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondents opposes this submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners by pointing out that the petitioners are not serious about contesting the complaints and have delayed the final decision in the complaints unnecessarily from the year 2004. He submits that both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have given ample opportunities to the petitioners to lead evidence and having failed to avail of these opportunities, the petitioners cannot now contend that such opportunity ought to be given to them, especially when the time to complete the trial is extended only upto 31st October, 2010. The learned Advocate also points out that the matter had been fixed for arguments on 9th September, 2010. 6. It is undoubtedly true that the petitioners had no justification to avoid leading evidence to prove the charges against the workmen. Ample opportunity had been WP/6833 & 6855/2010 6 afforded to them. The contention that the Labour Court should not have proceeded with the matter only if the Revision was pending is untenable. The judgment in the case of Kishor Bhikansingh Rajput v/s. Preeti Kishor Rajput, reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 481 , relied on by Mr. Pakale has no application in the facts of the present case. It cannot be read to lay down a general proposition of law that when a superior Court ceased of a matter and refuses to stay the proceedings before the subordinate Court, the latter must not proceed with the matters. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to lead evidence to justify their action in terminating the services of the respondents. However, that will be subject to payment of costs. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by the following order : “O R D E R” (i). The impugned orders dated 27th July, 2010 passed in Complaints (ULP) Nos. WP/6833 & 6855/2010 7 36 of 2004 and 35 of 2004, respectively, by the Labour Court, Satara as well as the impugned orders dated 31st July, 2010, passed in Revision (ULP) Nos.23 of 2010 and 22 of 2010, and 20th August, 2010, in Complaints (ULP) Nos.36 of 2004 and 35 of 2004, respectively, by the Industrial Court, Satara are set aside. (ii). The Labour Court, Satara, shall permit the petitioners to lead evidence subject to the condition that costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to each of the respondent- workmen, on 9th September, 2010. If the costs are not paid on that day, the matter shall proceed and arguments shall be heard as scheduled. (iii). It appears that the petitioners have also not cross examined the respondents. The Labour Court, Satara may permit the petitioners to cross- examine the respondents, however subject to payment of costs, as aforesaid.