JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. In this proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the correctness of an order dated 26th July, 2002 of the Industrial Court at Thane is called in question. By its order, the Industrial Court dismissed a complaint filed by the petitioner under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("MRTU PULP Act, 1971").

3. The petitioner was employed by the first respondent on 1st March, 1974. The petitioner initially worked as a Junior Clerk and was thereafter promoted as a Department Assistant. On 8th November, 1986 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The substance of the charge against the petitioner was that in certain proceedings which were pending before the Industrial Court in a complaint filed by N.R.C. Employees Union, the company had filed an application dated 8th October, 1996. On 14th October, 1996, it was alleged, the petitioner filed a reply to the application of the company and annexed thereto a tenancy agreement in respect of certain office premises of the company. According to the first respondent, this item was taken from the agenda of a particular meeting of the Board of Directors of the company held on 9th September, 1996. The petitioner was charged of the misconduct of having clandestinely obtained and removed a copy of the agenda of the Board meeting which was thereafter handed over to the Advocate for the Union. The petitioner was charged with theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the employer's business and property, disclosing to an unauthorised person information in regard to the processes of the establishment and of the commission of an act subversive of discipline. The petitioner submitted his reply on 16th November, 1996. A disciplinary inquiry was convened by the employer and on 25th February, 1997 the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. A letter was addressed to the petitioner on 25th February, 1997 enclosing a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 5th March, 1997.

4. On 5th March, 1997 the petitioner filed a complaint apprehending termination of his services under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. In the complaint, it is common ground that the first respondent appeared before the Labour Court and sought an adjournment to file its reply. In the meantime, the first respondent stated through its representative before the Court that no action would be taken against the petitioner until 12th March, 1997. Thereafter, the hearing of the application for the grant of interim relief was adjourned by the Labour Court from time to time. Eventually, on 12th October, 1998 the application for interim relief came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court declining to grant interim relief, the petitioner moved the Industrial Court in revision. By an order dated 3rd November, 1998 the Industrial Court directed the Labour Court to dispose of the complaint within a period of two months and observed that in the meantime the first respondent shall not terminate the services of the petitioner.

5. On 29th November, 1998 the first respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner adverting to the proceedings which had taken place between the parties including the orders which had been passed by the Labour Court and by the Industrial Court in revision. By the said letter, the first respondent informed the petitioner that he will not be entitled to the payment of Subsistence Allowance with effect from 5th November, 1998. The reason for which the payment of the Subsistence Allowance was being withheld was stated thus:

"In view of the Court proceedings initiated by you, the Management is unable to proceed further in the matter. This situation arose for the reasons directly attributabl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document