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 respo