The Industrial Court's decision was upheld as it was a correct and possible view based on the petitioner's admission of charges and absence without substantial grounds.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision (ULP) No. 58 of 2007 and in Revision (ULP) No. 1 of 2010.

2. The petitioner herein was working as “Lab Chemist” with the respondent Karkhana. During his service period, certain misconducts, against the petitioner, were reported and more particularly, the misconducts of absenteeism, disobedience of the orders of the superiors, indiscipline behaviour etc. To conduct the enquiry of the said misconduct, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Charges were framed and the charge sheet was served on the petitioner. Domestic enquiry was held. The petitioner did participate in the said enquiry. Enquiry Officer had submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty for the charges of misconduct levelled against him and by way of punishment, his services came to be terminated.

3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said punishment imposed by the respondent Karkhana, had challenged the legality and validity of the said termination order, by filing complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2000 before the Judge, IInd Labour Court, Ahmednagar, alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent Karkhana. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the respondent Karkhana by filing a detail written statement, which was supported by the relevant documents.

The learned Judge, IInd Labour Court, Ahmednagar, firstly decided the issue of legality of domestic enquiry on 26.7.2006 and it was accordingly held and declared that the domestic enquiry, so conducted against the petitioner, is legal, fair and proper. Thereafter, the complaint filed by the petitioner was heard on merits and the Labour Court finally decided the original complaint on 31.7.2007 and was pleased to pass judgment and order holding that the respondent Karkhana is engaged in unfair labour practice under Item I (a) and (b) Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said Act”) and directed the respondent Karkhana to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without any back wages.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.7.2007, passed by the learned Judge, IInd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in compliant (ULP) No. 72 of 2000, the respondent Karkhana had filed Revision (ULP) No. 58 of 2007. The petitioner herein had also filed Revision (ULP) No.1 of 2010, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court to the extent of declining him to grant back wages. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, had heard both the Revisions together and decided the same on 5.10.2010, by the common judgment and order, which is impugned herein. By the said judgment, the learned Member has allowed the Revision filed by the Karkhana and the Revision, filed by the petitioner herein. came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the Labour Court regarding reinstatement of the petitioner is proper and the revision filed by the respondent ought to have been dismissed by the Industrial Court. It is submitted that the Labour court has rightly observed that the petitioner has served for 19 years with the respondent Karkhana and considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, the punishment of termination from service, is too harsh. It is submitted that entire service record of the petitioner with respondent is clean and unblemished. It is submitted that the respondent Karkhana has indulged in unfair labour practice, as contemplated in clause 1 (a) and (b) of Schedule Iv of the said Act and thus the complaint was very well maintainable before the Labour Court. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was conducted by the Inquiry Officer with bias mind. The petitioner was not provided wi