R.V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Considering the conspectus of this matter, I had requested the learned Advocates practising Labour Laws to assist the Court. Accordingly, S/Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, V.R. Mundada, S.V. Dankh, Avishkar Shelke, P.V. Barde and Y.R. Marlapalle, learned Advocates have rendered their assistance in this matter.

3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.7.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur, by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been allowed (in fact partly) and they have been directed to address the Labour Court in the pending Criminal Complaint No. 6/2011 filed u/s. 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as to why process should not be issued against them.

4. By this petition and considering the contentions of the respondents, an issue has been raised as to whether the remedy of revision u/s. 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is available to the accused - respondents before the Labour Court for questioning the issuance of process.

5. The respondents contend that after the Labour Court issued process in the criminal complaint, the petitioners herein could not have preferred a Revision (ULP) u/s. 44 since Criminal Writ Petition u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the only remedy available.

6. There is no dispute that the Industrial Court had granted certain reliefs to the respondents herein in Complaint (ULP) No. 40/1992 (new No. 3/2004). On account of the purported disobedience of the directions of the Industrial Court, the respondents had filed the criminal complaint before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had issued process against the petitioners. It was for challenging the issuance of process dated 8.2.2011 that the petitioners preferred the Revision (ULP) before the Industrial Court.

7. The learned amicus curiae alongwith Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Advocate for the petitioners, have contended that the issuance of process could be challenged by the respondents - accused in revision proceedings u/s. 44. If advised, they could also have preferred a Criminal Writ Petition u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court.

8. The Labour Court while issuing process on 8.2.2011 had passed the following order:-

"Perused contents of complaint duly verified on oath and the orders of Hon'ble Industrial Court, Latur. The complainants alleged that in contravention of order of Hon'ble Member, Industrial Court, the complainants are retrenched by the accused. There is a prima case. Hence issue process U/s 48 of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act."

9. Before I delve upon the issue of maintainability of the revision proceedings, it needs to be noted that Shri Gunale, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent - employees, has made a statement on instructions that the criminal complaint filed by the respondents before the Labour Court was with regard to the disobedience of the petitioners of the direction of the Industrial Court to give work to the respondents whenever available and that the Labour Court would not be having the jurisdiction to go into whether the work was available or not, in a criminal complaint u/s. 48(1) of the 1971 Act. He, therefore, submits on instructions that this Court may conclude the issue as to whether a revision is maintainable for challenging the issuance of process by the Labour Court, notwithstanding the fact that the respondents would be withdrawing Criminal Complaint No. 6/2011 with liberty to approach the Industrial Court under Item 9 of Schedule IV for the redressal of their grievances.

10. Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for the petitioners, does not oppose the withdrawal of the criminal complaint, but joins Shri Gunale in submitting that this Court may deal with the issue as to whether a revision was maintainable before the Industrial Cou