The Labour Court found all the issues against the respondent, hence dismissed the companyplaint.
The Labour Court framed the following 3 issues Does the respondent prove that the misconduct alleged against the companyplainant is proved on the basis of evidence before the Court ?
ULP No.145/99.
iii Whether the companyplainant is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with companytinuity of service and with full back wages as prayed for ?
As stated above a writ petition filed against the said order of the Industrial Court came to be dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court hence this appeal.
Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the companyplaint the respondent preferred a revision before the Industrial Court at Pune under section 44 of the said Act.
The Industrial Court after companysidering the material on record disagreed with the finding of the Labour Court and reversing the said order quashed the termination of services of the respondent and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent with companytinuity of service.
It however did number grant back wages.
12 of 2001 the appellant Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and another are in appeal before us.
The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows The respondent herein and some others on being recommended by the District Social Welfare Department were selected as line helpers in the appellant Board.
Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the respondent herein filed a companyplaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1 a , b , d , f and g of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act before the I Labour Court, Pune, in Com.
On companying to know that the said recommendation was allegedly made fraudulently the respondent was dismissed from service by a letter dated 26.9.2000.
ii Whether the companyplainant proves that the respondent has terminated the services of the companyplainant by issuing the termination order dated 26/9/2000 by indulging into unfair labour practices under item No.1 a , b , d , f and g of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act 1971 ?
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay made in W.P. No.5836 of 2001 companyfirming the order of the Industrial Court, Pune made in Revision Application No.
