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 2026:BHC-AS:34664 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.] Page No. 3 of 3 20 August 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 20:29:12