JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocate Mr. Paranjape waives service for sole respondent. At the request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner establishment is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Member of the Industrial Court, Dhule dated 24.08.2016 in the respondent’s Complaint ULP No.85/2012 by which the punishment imposed on him in a Disciplinary Inquiry dated 08.03.2011 is quashed and set aside.

3. The respondent is appointed and working as a Conductor in the petitioner’s establishment. He was served with a charge sheet dated 27.08.2010 for unauthorized absenteeism for a period of 53 days. The inquiry concluded with a report dated 29.06.2011 holding the charge to have been proved. He was served with a notice to show cause before inflicting punishment. After he submitted a reply a punishment was imposed of reduction of basic pay by two stages, under the order dated 30.08.2011.

4. The respondent preferred a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (herein after the ULP Act) complaining of unfair labour practice as defined under Items 9 and 10 of Scheduled IV of the ULP Act. The Industrial Court by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2014 allowed the complaint partly. It held that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse and the charges were not proved.

5. The petitioner establishment challenge that judgment before this Court in Writ Petition No.5762/2015. By the judgment dated 20.10.2015 the Writ Petition was partly allowed. It was observed that the Industrial Court had erred in directly entertaining the complaint on merits in its entirety when it was obligatory on its part to, first of all, frame issues regarding observance of principles of natural justice and perversity of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, by referring to catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and even this Court summed up in the matter of Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Vasant Ambadas Deshpande; 2014 (1) CLR 878 and MSRTC, Beed Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nizam ; 2014 (3) CLR 514. This Court therefore allowed the petition partly and directed Industrial Court to frame those two issues and to try them as preliminary ones.

6. Pursuant to such direction the Industrial Court framed the two issues and decided the complaint once again by the order under challenge, whereby it allowed the complaint and quashed and set aside the punishment.

7. The learned advocate Mr. Bagul for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondent has been a chronic absentee. His previous conduct was required to be taken into consideration and was rightly taken into consideration while holding the charge to have been duly proved. He did not deny the fact of being absent without prior sanction of the leave or even without prior intimation. He had miserably failed to prove that he was required to remain absent because of his illness. A plausible view taken by the Inquiry Officer could not have been upset by the Industrial Court while deciding the complaint. It was not competent to sit in appeal and judge legality of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. It was not a case of no evidence. There was some evidence and based on that a conscious decision was taken by the Inquiry Officer and the punishment was inflicted by the competent authority. There was no perversity. Principles of natural justice were followed. The judgment of the Industrial Court is erroneous and may be quashed and set aside.

8. The learned advocate Mr. Pranjape for the respondent supported the judgment of the Industrial Court. He submitted that the principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting the inquiry. The observations and conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer were perverse and erroneous. Keeping the applications for l