KAMDAR S.U., J.:---By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment dated 22-2-2002 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (U.L.P.) No. 219 of 2001. By this judgment, the learned Industrial Court has exercised jurisdiction under section 44 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, 1971).

The brief facts of the case are set out as under:-

2. On 14-7-1991, the petitioner company called two of the employees for maintenance work and were assigned the job of maintaining the cutting machine. It is the case of the petitioner company, that at about 4.45 p.m., the maintenance supervisor after taking trial of the cutting machine left the department and at that point of time the workmen were still in the department. On 15-7-1991 a sabotage was detected in respect of the cutting machine in the very first shift and it was required to repair the said machine. It is the case of the petitioner company, that there was substantial sabotage damaging the said machine by the workmen.

3. On the aforesaid basis, a charge-sheet was issued on 6-8-1991 to the respondent workmen and a departmental enquiry was commenced. During the course of the enquiry, it seems that there were various litigations which have been taken by either of the parties to the Industrial Court and some of them even to this Honble Court. However, they are not relevant for deciding the present writ petition and are therefore not dealt with. Ultimately, the enquiry was concluded and enquiry report dated 18-9-1993 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the workmen guilty of the charges levelled against them. On 1-10-1993, workmen replied to the findings of the Enquiry Officer which were forwarded to them. On 26-8-1993, the petitioner company dismissed the workmen from their employment.

4. This order of dismissal was challenged by the respondent workmen by filing complaints being Complaint (U.L.P.) Nos. 68 and 69 of 1994 on 26-1-1994. During the pendency of the said complaint in the Labour Court, an application was made by the respondent workmen on 18-9-1998 for taking additional documents which were not forming a part of the enquiry proceedings before the Enquiry Officer to be taken on record. The said documents being the attendance register showing the attendance on 13-7-1991 and 14-7-1991 as well as the entry register. The said application was marked Exhibit U-35 by the Labour Court. By an order dated 8-1-1999, the learned trial Court rejected the said application being Exhibit U-35. Simultaneously, the respondent workmen also made an application some time in or about 1997 directing issuance of a summons to one Mr. Ashok Agrawal. The said application was marked Exhibit U-19 and by an order dated 8-12-1997, the said application for issuing summons to Shri Agrawal was also rejected by the trial Court.

5. The petitioner states that thereafter the Labour Court proceeded to hear the main complaints after giving findings in respect of the aforesaid two applications and rejecting both on preliminary grounds. The Labour Court by its decision dated 23-5-2001 held that the enquiry is legal, valid, fair and proper and, therefore, no ground is made out for interfering with the punishment awarded by the petitioner company.

6. On 26-7-2001, a review application was filed being Revision Application (U.L.P.) No. 20 of 2001, inter alia, seeking the review of the order of the trial Court dated 23-5-2001. On 8-10-2001, the said review application was rejected by the Labour Court.

7. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent workers filed a revision application before the Industrial Court on 22-12-2001. The said revision application being Revision Application (U.L.P.) No. 219 of 2001 has been filed under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The learned Industrial Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 44 of the M.R