Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1. Though served with the notice of final disposal, none appears for respondent No.2, who is a formal party.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner-company has challenged order dated 24/10/2017 passed by the Industrial Court, Akola in a complaint filed by respondent No.1. By the said order, the Industrial Court has partly allowed application for stay moved by respondent No.1 directing that the enquiry proceedings initiated by the petitioner shall remain stayed during the pendency of the complaint before the Industrial Court. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to proceed further with the enquiry upon allowing respondent No.1 to engage a lawyer as defence representative in the enquiry proceedings. In fact, the question that arises for consideration is, as to whether respondent No.1 is entitled to engage the services of a lawyer as his defence representative in the enquiry initiated by the petitioner against him.

4. Respondent No.1 is an employee working with the petitioner-company. On 26/04/2017 a charge-sheet was issued against respondent No.1 wherein it was stated that respondent No.1 had indulged in misconduct under clauses 24(a), 24(b), 24(k) and 24(l) of the Model Standing Orders under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1946”) applicable to respondent No.1. On the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, enquiry was initiated against respondent No.1 wherein the petitioner appointed its representative and respondent No.1 appointed his defence representative being one Mr. Patil, who was Secretary of the representative union. About 12 meetings of the enquiry committee were held from May, 2017 onwards and thereafter, respondent No.1 moved an application before the enquiry officer seeking permission on 01/07/2017 for being represented by a lawyer/advocate as his defence representative. On 08/07/2017, the enquiry officer rejected the said application of respondent No.1.

5. On 08/09/2017, respondent No.1 filed complaint under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1971”) before the Industrial Court claiming that by rejecting the aforesaid application of respondent No.1 to be represented by an advocate before the enquiry officer, unfair labour practice had been committed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971, as there was violation of principles of natural justice. It was further prayed that a direction be given for permission to respondent No.1 to engage advocate as his defence representative in the enquiry proceedings. Along with the said application, respondent No.1 also moved an application for stay of the enquiry proceedings during the pendency of the complaint before the Industrial Court. By the impugned order dated 24/10/2017, the Industrial Court partly allowed the application for stay filed by respondent No.1 in the aforesaid manner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, wherein notice was issued for final disposal on 12/03/2018. The contesting respondent No.1 entered appearance through counsel.

6. Mr.H.V.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court was wholly unsustainable, firstly, because it was in the teeth of Model Standing Orders framed under the Act of 1946 as also law laid down in the context of the right of a delinquent employee to be represented by a legal practitioner and secondly, it was submitted that respondent No.1 had failed to make out any prima facie case regarding unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner-company and that therefore, the impugned order was required to be set aside. It was pointe