JUDGMENT:-

1. At the outset it is to be mentioned that, on 06.02.2025, during the course of argument, Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. V. P. Golewar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly made the statement about amicable settlement of dispute between the parties. In pursuance of said statement, the Petitioner/Chairman of the Industrial Establishment and employer of Respondent i.e. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., tendered offer at Exh. ‘X’. The Respondent No.2/ Employee tendered his offer at Exh. ‘Y’. As per offer Exh. ‘X’ submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 employee is entitled for monetary benefits arising out of his service to Rs.10,30,000/-, whereas, the respondent No.2/ employee submitted his offer Exh. ‘Y’ and claimed that, he is entitled for monetary benefits of Rs.29,81,686/-. On enquiry, both the parties declined to negotiate the offers and fairly stated that they do not wish to settle the dispute. As such, matter is heard on merit.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, heard both sides finally at the admission stage.

3. By the present Petition, the Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Revision (ULP) No.5 of 2022, thereby upheld the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Ahmednagar, on 06.08.2022, in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 9 of 2020 for non implementation of Judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 1998.

4. In nutshell, facts giving rise to present petition are that, respondent No.2/complainant was in service of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., (for short, hereinafter it would be referred to as “Industrial Establishment”) as Machinist. The Respondent No.2 was served with charge sheet on 30.01.1997 for his alleged misconduct. After domestic enquiry, the respondent No.2 was dismissed from service vide order dated 08.05.1998. Being aggrieved by order of dismissal, respondent No.2 filed Complaint (ULP) No. 57/1998 before the learned Labour Court, Ahmednagar. On 29.11.2019, the learned Judge, Labour Court passed the Judgment in Complaint (ULP) No. 57/1998 and allowed said complaint declaring that, the order of dismissal passed on 08.05.1998 by the employer amounts to unfair labour practice contemplated under Item 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( for short, the MRTU & PULP Act).

5. Being aggrieved by said Judgment, the employer/Industrial establishment had filed Revision Petition (ULP) No. 4 of 2020 before the Industrial Court. On 14.12.2021, the learned Member, Industrial Court, passed the Judgment in Revision petition (ULP) No. 4 of 2020 and upheld Judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 1998. Being aggrieved by both the Judgments, the Employer/Industrial Establishment filed Writ Petition No.11899 of 2022 before this Court. On 12.01.2022, this Court passed an order in Writ Petition No.11899 of 2022 and issued “Rule”. However, this Court declined to grant interim stay to the effect and operation of Judgment dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Industrial Court. The said petition is pending for final decision. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed the Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 9 of 2020 under section 48(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act and prayed for taking criminal action against the Respondents for non implementation of Judgment passed by the learned Labour Court.

6. The Respondent no. 2 alleged that, his employer/Industrial Establishment failed to comply with Judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 57/1998 despite no stay is in operation for implementing judgment dated 29.11.2019 and issued notice on 06.01.2020 calling upon the accused i.e