Important Point—Bar of proceedings under other Central or State Acts within meaning of Section 59 of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act does not apply to present proceedings under B.I.R. Act.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent the petition is forthwith taken up for hearing.

2. The petition impugns an order passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in an Appeal under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. By the impugned order the Industrial Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court at Pune, on an application under Section 78(1) of the B.I.R. Act filed by the Petitioner herein for reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages.

3. Since 1982 the Petitioner was employed as a clerk with the Respondent Bank. The terms and conditions of his service were governed by the certified standing orders framed under the B.I.R. Act. On 06/11/1995, the Petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed misappropriation of funds. The allegation was that the Petitioner in collusion with the constituents of the Bank, allowed deposit of a stolen draft and withdrawal of money from the Laxmi Road Branch of the Respondent bank.

In a disciplinary enquiry initiated by the Respondent, on or about 26/12/1998 a report was submitted by the enquiry officer. The report held him to be guilty of misconduct complained of. The Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act), being Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 3 of 1999, before the Labour Court at Pune seeking a restraint against the Respondent bank from terminating his services. The Petitioner's application for interim relief against termination was rejected by the Labour Court on 16/01/1999. The Respondent, thereafter, issued a termination order to the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereupon sent an approach notice under Section 42 of the B.I.R. Act and filed an Application under Section 78 of the B.I.R. Act before the Labour Court for quashing of the termination order and praying for reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages. During the pendency of the Application before the Labour Court, the Petitioner withdrew his complaint earlier filed before the Labour Court under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act and thereafter, on 30/04/2003 a preliminary issue concerning fairness and propriety of the enquiry was framed by the Labour Court. Pending hearing of the preliminary issue, the Petitioner was acquitted by a Criminal Court. Even the other employees, who were charge-sheeted along with the Petitioner, were reinstated in service. On 20/04/2004 the Petitioner's application under Section 78 of the B.I.R. Act was allowed and the termination order was set aside by the Labour Court. The Respondent was directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity in service and full back wages with effect from 16/01/1999. The Respondent bank challenged the order of the Labour Court in an appeal under Section 84 of the B.I.R. Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court solely on the ground that the Application under Section 78 was barred by reason of Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. That order of the Industrial Court is in challenge in the present petition.

4. Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act is in the following terms.

“59. Bar of proceedings under Bombay or Central Act: If any proceeding in respect of any matter falling within the purview of this Act is instituted under this Act, then no proceeding shall at any time be entertained by any authority in respect of that matter under the Central Act or, as the case may be, the Bombay Act; and if any proceeding in respect of any matter within the purview of this Act is instituted under the Central Act, or as the case may be, the Bombay Act, then no proceedings shall at any time be entertained by the Industrial or Labour Court under this Act”.

5. As is plain from its language, the condition for applicability of the bar under Section 59 is that a proceedi