JUDGMENT (MAJMUDAR P.B., J.)

1. By filing this petition, the petitionercompany has challenged the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik dated 31st March, 1997 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No. 361 of 1995. By the revisional order, the revisional Court set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 17th October, 1995 in Complaint (ULP) No. 58 of 1988. The revisional Court held that the petitioner company, who was the respondent before the revisional Court, had indulged in unfair labour practice under item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The revisional Court also directed the petitioner company to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. The revisional court also directed the petitioner company to pay cost of Rs. 500/to the first respondent.

2. The present litigation has a chequered history. The first respondent was appointed as an Operator in the year 1975. In the year 1977, he was placed in G5 grade. It seems that thereafter the question of granting further promotion in G7 grade arose. The first respondent was not promoted on the said grade as, according to the petitioner, he had not cleared the interview and the requisite test. The first respondent thereafter started making grievances in this behalf. It is the case of the company that the first respondent adopted pressurising tactics by disobeying lawful and reasonable orders/instructions of the superiors with regard to maintenance and repair work which work, according to the company, was required to be handled by the first respondent. On the allegation of certain misconducts attributed to the first respondent workman, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him in August, 1986 and the first respondent was subjected to chargesheet.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned workman was not cooperating with the enquiry proceedings and ultimately a dismissal order was passed against the first respondent on 12th March, 1988. The first respondent thereafter filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 58 of 1988 under items 1 (a) (b) (d) and (f) and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. There were certain interim applications filed by the first respondent before the Labour Court in connection with production of documents, etc. The Labour Court ultimately by its judgment and order dated 17th October, 1995 dismissed the said complaint which order was challenged by the first respondent by way of revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The said revision was numbered as Revision Application (ULP) No. 361 of 1995. The revisional Court by its order dated 26th June, 1996 allowed the said revision application, set aside the order dated 17th October, 1995 and passed an order of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner company challenged the said decision by way of Writ Petition No. 4321 of 1996. The learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 28th September, 1996 set aside the order of the revisional Court and directed the revisional Court to decide the matter afresh and on merits on all issues in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. On the basis of the said order, the revisional Court again heard both the sides and by the impugned order dated 31st March, 1997 allowed the said revision application by setting aside the order of the Labour Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No. 58 of 1988.

4. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the Petitioner in this writ petition. Mr. Rele, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has attacked the order of the revisional Court on the ground that once this Court has sent the matter back to the revisional Court for deciding it on merits, it was not open for the revisional Court to hold that the Labour Court could not have permitted the petitioner to lead fresh evidence before it. Mr. Rele further submitted that, as a matter of fact, in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document