Narayan S/O Vithal Ambekar vs Plantation Officer And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1093 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.G. Deshpande, J.

1. Heard Shri Saboo, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. This Court by its judgment dated June 20, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 3352/2000 remanded the matter to the Industrial Court, Yavatmal specifically directing the learned Member of the Industrial Court to decide the same afresh since no reasons were assigned for confirming the order passed by the Labour Court by the Industrial Court. The learned Member of the Industrial Court since did not advance any reasons for upholding the Judgment and order passed by the Labour Court which was under challenged before the Industrial Court, this Court specifically observed that this was no Judgment in the eye of law. This clearly means that though the learned Member of the Industrial Court by its Judgment and Order dated March 14, 2002 upheld the order of the Labour Court, did not give any reasonings and this Court, therefore, specifically had directed that the learned Member of the Industrial Court shall decide the same afresh by dealing with the submissions and decide the matter judiciously by giving appropriate reasons.

4. After the matter had gone to the learned Member of the Industrial Court, surprisingly the learned Member of the Industrial Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to the Labour Court to permit the parties to adduce documentary and oral evidence, if any, and with a further direction to dispose of the matter thereafter expeditiously. From the tenor of the order passed by this Court earlier, this does not appear to be the reason for this Court to remand the matter to the Industrial Court. If at all the shortcomings which are pointed out by the Industrial Court by the present order, could have been the reason for remand, ordinarily this Court itself would have remanded the matter to the trial Court instead of the Industrial Court. In view of this specific fact, it is clear that this Court expected the learned Member of the Industrial Court to give reasonings as it were lacking in the earlier order passed by the Industrial Court.

5. By remanding the matter further to the Labour Court, virtually the learned Member of the Industrial Court has enhanced the scope of further Inquiry into the matter and further giving the chance to the erring party on earlier occasion to fill up the lacuna by adducing evidence. This could not be said to be the intention of this Court in remanding the matter to give chance to the parties concerned to fill in the lacuna.

6. After having gone through the order passed by this Court earlier and after taking into consideration the order passed by the Industrial Court which is of no use when the said order could have been passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court on earlier occasion itself, this Court would not approve of the order passed by the learned Industrial Court in remanding the matter further. It is, therefore, necessary that the Industrial Court shall take up the matter and pass an appropriate order on the basis of whatsoever material was available before it on earlier occasion by substantiating the conclusion arrived at by that Court which it had given to on earlier occasion. In view of this, the order passed by the Industrial Court is set aside. The Industrial Court shall decide the matter afresh by giving due reasonings to the conclusion arrived at by him on earlier occasion within three months from the date of the communication of this order. With these directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the abovesaid terms. No order as to costs.