RAJU PURUSHOTTAM WARURKAR Vs. BOKEY PRINTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing by consent of counsel.

(2.) This writ petition challenges the revisional order passed by the Industrial Court at Amravati, under Sec. 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in short, "Act").

(3.) The petitioner herein (original complainant), who was working as a printer with the respondent firm, was terminated on 28/08/2002. The petitioner, who was appointed in the year 1985 and whose services were confirmed in the year 1987, had been working with the respondent till his termination on 28/08/2002. Just before his termination, on 05/08/2002, a notice was served on the petitioner alleging various acts of the misconduct on his part. After serving him with this notice and before he could show cause thereon, a notice of termination was issued to him on 28/08/2002. That notice was purportedly a notice of retrenchment, which is said to be in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner challenged the termination before the Labour Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices filed before it under Sec. 28 read with Item No.1(a), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Act, for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The Labour Court, vide its order dated 02/08/2010, partly allowed the complaint declaring that the respondent herein did engage in unfair labour practices under Item Nos.1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in the original post with continuity of service and 30% of back wages from the date of his termination till his reinstatement. This order was challenged in revision by the respondent herein before the Industrial Court at Amravati. By its order dated 04/08/2016, the Industrial Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the Labour Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh decision of the complaint in accordance with law. This order is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.