Bombay High Court
JAPFA COMFEED INDIA PVT LTDversusKASHINATH JADHAV
- Decided
- Disposal
- Partly Allowed
Holding
The stay orders dated 11 October 2023 and 6 March 2026 are set aside, and the Labour Court is directed to decide the preliminary issues on the fairness of the enquiry and employee status expeditiously.
Summary
JAPFA COMFEED India Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging a stay order dated 11 October 2023 issued by the First Labour Court, Pune, which halted the termination of employee Kashinath Jadhav pending a determination of his status under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner also contested the dismissal of its revision application by the Industrial Court on 6 March 2026. The High Court observed that the stay was unwarranted because the termination followed a domestic enquiry where the charges were proved, and the Labour Court should first examine the fairness and perversity of that enquiry before staying the termination. Consequently, the Court set aside both the Labour Court’s stay and the Industrial Court’s dismissal, directing the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issues on enquiry fairness within three months and to subsequently decide the pending complaint (ULP No.60 of 2023). The parties were instructed to cooperate for an expeditious disposal, and the merits of the case remain open for determination. The writ petition was partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Labour Court was justified in staying the termination of the employee pending determination of his status under Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
- Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the revision application challenging the Labour Court’s stay order.
- Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the employee was fair and its findings perverse, warranting a stay of termination.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Labour Law
- Termination
- Stay Order
- Employee Status
- Domestic Enquiry
- Unfair Labour Practices
- Industrial Court
- Preliminary Issues
- Expeditious Disposal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34664
Megha 44_wp_7369_2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7369 OF 2026
JAPFA COMFEED India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Kashinath Jadhav ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b. Mr. Gunjan Thakkar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikas H. Shekdar for the Respondent.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 20 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) Challenge in the present Petition is to the order dated 11 October
2023 passed by the learned Judge, First Labour Court, Pune, granting
interim relief in favour of the Respondent by staying termination order
dated 24 July 2023 till decision on preliminary issue relating to status of
the Respondent. Also challenged is the order dated 6 March 2026 passed
by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, dismissing the Revision
Application.
2) I have heard Mr. Bapat, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the Petitioner and Mr. Shekdar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I
Page No.1 of 3
20 August 2026
Megha 44_wp_7369_2026
have gone through both the impugned orders and perused the records of
the case filed alongwith the Petition.
3) Merely because the Labour Court was to take up the issue of
status of the Respondent as ‘employee’ under Section 3(5) of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971(MRTU &PULP Act), the same could not have
been a reason ipso facto for staying the termination. In fact, the
terimation is preceded by a domestic enquiry in which charges levelled
against the Respondent are proved. In these circumstances, the Labour
Court will have to first decide whether the enquiry is fair and proper and
findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse or not. Before undertaking
that process, the Labour Court has straightaway proceeded to stay the
termination.
4) The Stay is operational since 11 October 2023. Mr. Shekdar
submits that evidence of the Respondent is already filed. However,
because of pendency of Revision and of the present Petition, it appears
that the hearing of the Compalint (ULP) No.60 of 2023 has not
progressed. In my view, instead of continuing the interim order any
further, it would be appropiate that the Labour Court decides the
Complaint in an expeditious manner.
5) Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Orders dated 11 October 2023 passed by the Labour
Court and 6 March 2026 passed by the Industrial Court
are set aside.
Page No.2 of 3
20 August 2026
Megha 44_wp_7369_2026
(ii) The Labour Court shall proceed to decide the
preliminary issues relating to fairness of enquiry and
perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer in an
expeditious manner, preferably within a period of
three months.
(iii) The Labour Court shall decide the issue of status of
the Respodent as ‘employee’ under Section 3(5) of the
MRTU &PULP Act while deciding the reamining issues
at the time of final hearing of the Complaint (ULP)
No.60 of 2023.
(iv) The Complaint (ULP) No.60 of 2023 shall accordingly
be decided after a period of three weeks of rendering
the decision on preliminary issues.
(v) Considering the pendency of the Complaint since the
year 2023, neither side shall challenge the order on
the preliminary issues but would be at liberty to
challenge the same while challenging the final order
in the Complaint.
6) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.
Writ Petition is partly allowed. Both the sides shall extend due
cooperation to the Labour Court for expeditious disposal of the
Complaint (ULP) No.60 of 2023.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 20 August 2026
Date: 21/08/2026 20:29:12
Checking your session…