JUDGMENT - KOCHAR R.J., J.:---The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and orders dated 21-8-1993 and 17-11-1995 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint U.L.P. No. 1158 of 1992 filed by the respondent No. 2-employee under section 28 read with Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g), 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 as he was aggrieved by the order of termination dated 4-6-1992 passed by the petitioner Bank alleging several acts of misconducts committed by the respondent employee.

2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent employee was served with charge-sheet alleging against him certain acts of misconducts which can be termed as fraud committed by him while in employment. I need not set out the details and the charges as it is not necessary for the present purpose. It further appears that a domestic enquiry was held in the said charges and the concerned employee had fully participated in the enquiry. On the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer the petitioner Bank issued the aforesaid termination order terminating the respondent employee from employment with effect from 4-6-1992 on the grounds inter alia that of loss of confidence.

3. The respondent employee aggrieved by the said order of termination and, therefore, filed the complaint under section 28 read with section 30 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 to challenge the order of termination as an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items set out by me hereinabove. The petitioner bank appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint on the grounds including the substantial ground of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain and try the complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. According to the petitioner bank the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint pertaining to Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act as that jurisdiction was exclusively conferred on the Labour Court under section 5 of the M.R.T.U. . P.U.L.P. Act. The Industrial Courts jurisdiction was in respect of the other items of Schedule IV of and other Schedules. According to the petitioner bank the respondent employee had challenged the order of termination being an unfair labour practice on various grounds, and therefore, it was for the Labour Court alone to have decided the said complaint.

4. By the first order dated 21-8-1993 the Industrial Court held that the enquiry held against the employee was fair and proper but findings were perverse. The petitioner bank was, therefore, permitted to lead evidence to justify the order of termination before the Industrial Court. It appears that the bank has challenged the aforesaid order of the Industrial Court by filing a separate writ petition which is still pending. It further appears that since the proceedings were not stayed the bank adduced independent evidence before the Industrial Court to justify its action of termination. After recording the evidence the Industrial Court by the aforesaid impugned order dated 17-11-1995 held that the bank had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and also quashed and set aside the termination order dated 4-6-1992 passed against the respondent employee and further directed the bank to reinstate him in service in his original post with full backwages and all consequential benefits from the date of termination. The petitioner bank has filed the present writ petition against the final order of the Industrial Court to challenge its legality and validity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Shri S.M. Naik, the learned Advocate appearing for the bank has strenuously submitted that the Industrial Court had committed a serious and grave error of law in holding that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide a complaint which squarely fell under Item 1 of Schedule IV of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document