The court emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice and the right of the employer to adduce evidence in both situations, as well as the need for the management to reserve the right to lead evidence in the written statement.

JUDGMENT - Per V.K. BARDE, J.:---In all these Letters Patent Appeal a common point has arisen and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") filed five writ petitions in this Court being Writ Petition Nos. 2866 of 2001, 2869 of 2001, 2867 of 2001, 2870 of 2001 and 2868 of 2001. These writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court together and are disposed of by a common judgment and order passed on 23rd July, 2001.

3. The brief facts leading to these litigations are that the five respondents in the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as "the employees") were in service of the appellants-management and their services were terminated. The employees thereafter filed proceedings before the Labour Court, Jalgaon under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act), contending that the unfair labour practice was committed by the management while terminating the services of the employees. The learned Labour Judge framed the necessary issues and he tried the issue :-

Does the complainant prove that the enquiry conducted against him is not fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice ?

as a preliminary issue and after hearing both the sides came to a conclusion that the complainant failed to prove that issue. It means that it was held that the enquiry was conducted against him in fair and proper manner and by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

4. Thereafter, the matter proceeded before the Labour Judge for consideration of further issues. The learned Labour Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence were perverse. On coming to this conclusion, the learned Labour Judge passed the order that the management should pay 75 percent back wages to the employees from 27th November, 1995 to 19th March, 1999 along with all legal dues upto 19th March 1999 within a month from the date of receipt of the order. This order was passed on holding that the employees proved that the management had committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 1(g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act.

5. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Labour Judge, the management filed five revision petitions before the Industrial Court at Jalgaon. The learned Member of the Industrial Court dismissed all the revision petitions and therefore the five writ petitions came to be filed in this Court.

6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the sides and after considering all the circumstances and especially the law laid down by various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, issued the directions that the petitions were allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court was set aside and the Labour Court was directed to given an opportunity to the management to lead evidence on the point of proving the charges framed against the employees and then consider the aspect whether the management proved the charges and whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the charges proved and mould the decision accordingly. It is further directed to the Labour Court to dispose of the matters as per law on or before 31st March, 2002 and against this order the five Letters Patent Appeals are filed.

7. The main point canvassed before us by the learned Counsel on both sides is that whether it was proper and legal on the part of the learned Single Judge to remand the matters to the Labour Court, giving an opportunity to the management to lead evidence to frame the charges against the employees and this aspect is being canvassed on the basis of the rulings of the Supreme Court which are referred to by the learned Single Judge in his judgment.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that when the L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document