(Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.)

1. The appellant was employed by the respondents as the securityincharge of their factory. The respondents dismissed him from service vide letter dated 27/9/1990. The appellant filed Complaint (ULP) No.6 of 1991 in the IInd Labour Court, Thane, challenging the respondents' action. In the complaint, it is his case that the respondents have indulged in unfair labour practices under items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (for short, “the MRTU & PULP Act”). According to the appellant, he was discharged without conducting any inquiry in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice. No chargesheet was served on him. It is his case that the respondents have discharged/dismissed him by way of victimization, not in good faith but in colourable exercise of the employer's rights for patently false reasons.

2. Admittedly, no chargesheet was served on the appellant. The particulars of misconduct were given by the respondents in their written statement. The respondents examined their witnesses in support of their case. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen, 1981 II LLJ 218, and judgment of this court in Madhukar Mahadik v. Indian Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd., 1992 1 CLR 1001, the Labour Court held that where no enquiry is held or the enquiry held is not proper, the management can be permitted to lead evidence to justify its action. The Labour Court, therefore, considered the evidence led by the respondents and came to a conclusion that the respondents had proved misconduct of the appellant and, therefore, the termination of the appellant was justified. Recording its conclusion that the respondents have not committed unfair labour practice, the Labour Court dismissed the complaint.

3. The appellant challenged the said order in the Industrial Court at Thane vide Revision Application (ULP) No.38 of 2005. By order dated 21/3/2006, the Industrial Court allowed the revision application. It set aside the order dated 10/12/2004 passed by the Labour Court, Thane, by observing that since no show cause notice was issued to the appellant and no inquiry was held, the Labour Court could not have allowed the respondents to lead evidence to justify their action. In the opinion of the Industrial Court, the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal because it was done with undue haste in colourable exercise of rights of the respondent employer. According to the Industrial Court, it resulted in victimization of the appellant. According to the Industrial Court the respondents had indulged in unfair labour practice prescribed under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. In the circumstances, the Industrial Court set aside the termination order dated 27/9/1990 issued by the respondents and directed the respondents to pay 50% of back wages to the appellant till 7/10/2000 with continuity in service till then along with all other legal dues. In the writ petition, this order was challenged by the respondents.

4. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Industrial Court and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for disposal in accordance with law. The said order is challenged in the instant letters patent appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Labour Court could not have allowed the respondents to lead evidence in the court in the absence of any chargesheet or departmental enquiry. He submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the present case was completely covered by the judgments of this court in (i) Theatere Employees Union v. S.P. Kotnis & Ors., 1992 I CLR, 474, (ii) Wai Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., Satara v. Bajirao Mahadeo Mahadik, 1992 I CLR 637 and (iii) Bank Karmachari Sangh, Pune v. Cosmos Cooperative Urban