JUDGMENT : J.A. PATIL, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated October 12, 1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, whereby, it has set aside the order dated July 13, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 234 of 1993. 2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in short as under: 3. The petitioner Union is a registered trade union of the workmen employed in the factory of respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, eversince its formation, the management of respondent No. 1 has started victimising the workmen who were the members of the petitioner union. It appears that the 24 workmen of the petitioner union were departmentally proceeded with and placed under suspension, but later on, the departmental enquiries against them were abandoned. However, their suspension continued. On May 7, 1993 at about 2.30 p.m. those workmen had come to the factory for collecting their subsistence allowances and they were stated to have demanded the said allowances at the enhanced rate. However, all of them were told to come and collect their subsistence allowances on May 12, 1993. According to the management, the workmen, then gave filthy and vulgur abuses to the Security Officers and declared that they would not allow any of the officers of the management to go out of the Company and that they would teach lesson to them. 4. Thereafter, on May 12, 1993, at about 3.30 p.m. those workmen again went to the factory to collect their subsistence allowances, It is alleged that at that time those workmen gheraoed the Security Officer, gave him abuses and also assaulted him, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries. For these two incidents dated May 7, 1993 and May 12, 1993, the management served on all 23 workmen and one Bhimrao Thombre, a non suspended employee, with the chargesheets dated May 13, 1993. All the concerned workmen appeared in the said enquiry and filed their respective explanations denying the charge of misconduct attributed to them. 5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Management proceeded with the enquiry on May 24, 1993. It appears that 7 out of 23 workmen who were charge-sheeted, remained absent and hence the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte against them. 5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Management proceeded with the enquiry on May 24, 1993. It appears that 7 out of 23 workmen who were charge-sheeted, remained absent and hence the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte against them. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to record the statements of three witnesses and the enquiry was thus about to be completed. The concerned workmen apprehended that the manner in which the enquiry was proceeding, there was every likelihood of their being victimised. The petitioner on their behalf therefore, filed complaint (ULP) No. 234 of 1993 on June 29, 1993 in the Labour Court, Thane, alleging that the respondent No. 1 management was indulging in unfair labour practices under Item No. 1(a), (b), (c), (d) & (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. By a separate application of the same date (Page 144) the petitioner applied for stay of the departmental enquiry and further prayed for restraining the respondent No. 1 from terminating or dismissing the workmen against whom the departmental enquiry was initiated. 6. The learned Judge by his order dated July 13, 1993 partly allowed the application but declined to grant stay to the enquiry. He directed that “The Company may continue with the enquiries against the workmen. The Company is hereby restrained, not to dismiss or discharge any workman referred in Annexure ‘A’ until further orders.” Not being satisfied with the said order, the respondent No. 1 filed a Revision Application (ULP) No. 68 of 1993 in the Industrial Court, Thane, The learned Member of the Industrial Court passed order dated October 12, 1993, allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Judge. Consequently, he dismissed the petitioners' application for interim relief. It is this order, which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 7. I have heard Shri I.A. Engineer, holding for Colin Gonsalves for the petitioners. None was present for the respondent No. 1. Shri Engineer took me through the relevant documents on the record and submitted that the departmental enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the 23 workmen is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it is a common enquiry against 24 workmen. Shri Engineer further submitted that the said enquiry was being conducted with undue haste and on day-to-day basis. Shri Engineer further submitted that the said enquiry was being conducted with undue haste and on day-to-day basis. He pointed out that it was proceeded ex-parte against 7 workmen. According to Shri Engineer the facts and circumstances of this case clearly disclosed that the respondent No. 1 has adopted an attitude of vengeance against the workmen and that it therefore, tried to victimise them. So far as the first grievance of Shri Engineer is concerned there is hardly any substance in it. It cannot be ignored that two incidents, dated May 7, 1993 and May 12, 1993 for which 24 workmen were proceeded against by the department was the common incident involving all of them. The misconduct attributed to the said workers was also of the same nature, Moreover, the witnesses to both the incidents were common. Under these circumstances there is nothing wrong if a joint enquiry was conducted against all the 24 workmen. Shri Engineer was unable to point out as to how and what prejudice would be caused to the workmen due to such a common enquiry wherein the charges against them are common. On the contrary holding of a common enquiry in such circumstances, ensures expedition. The matter would have been different if the charges against all the workmen were different and arising out of different incidents. This is however, not so. They arose out of two common incidents. The evidence in support of the charges being common, it was convenient for the Enquiry Officer to conduct a joint enquiry. 8. The second grievance made by Shri Engineer is about the alleged undue haste in conducting the enquiry. The charge-sheet against all the concerned workmen was served on May 13, 1993 and all of them filed their replies to the charge-sheet on May 18, 1993. The enquiry was started on May 24, 1993 and in the course of the said enquiry, 4 witnesses came to be examined in support of the charges. All the workmen were given due opportunity to examine the witnesses, although some of the questions put on their behalf to the witnesses were disallowed by the Enquiry Officer. However, on that ground it cannot be contended that the enquiry was being conducted with undue haste. After all it is for the Enquiry Officer to decide which questions in the cross-examination are relevant and which are not. However, on that ground it cannot be contended that the enquiry was being conducted with undue haste. After all it is for the Enquiry Officer to decide which questions in the cross-examination are relevant and which are not. He is bound to disallow certain questions if in his opinion they are not relevant for the purpose of the enquiry. As regard the grievance that the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte against some of the workmen, there is little substance. The Enquiry Officer has no alternative if the said workers chose to remain absent at the time of the hearing. 9. It is material to note that the learned Labour Judge did not grant any stay to the enquiry mainly because by that time almost all the witnesses were examined. He, therefore, allowed the enquiry to be continued further but restrained the management from passing a final order, dismissing or discharging any of the concerned workmen until further orders. It appears from the order of the learned Labour Judge that the Company had a bias against the workers against whom the departmental enquiry was being conducted. It appears that the said workmen had also filed complaint against the other employees of the factory, alleging that they had threatened the workmen of the petitioner Union. It was the contention of the petitioner that despite this fact, no action was taken by respondent No. 1 against those employees and only the workmen of the petitioner Union were proceeded against. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has dealt with this ground in para 11 of its judgment and observed “So far as the enquiry proceedings and the complaint filed before the Labour Court is concerned, there is no material on record to hold that the said criminal cases are the crossed complaints. It appears that mere lodging of the reports against each other has been taken by the learned Labour Judge as to crossed criminal complaints ………………..” The learned Member further observed in para-12 of his judgment “The management has to decide on the basis of the facts and circumstances of any incident as to which of the persons involved in the incident are required to be chargesheeted for the occurrences. Merely because there is complaint to the police against some employees, it is not necessary that they also should be chargesheeted along with the employees who are actually guilty of the misconduct.” Having regard to the above mentioned circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of the learned Labour Judge. At any rate the departmental enquiry was almost completed and that only final decision was to be taken. Therefore, there was no point in putting a restriction on passing final order in the departmental enquiry. In that event the departmental enquiry would remain pending unnecessarily. It was proper to allow the same to be completed and take to its logical end when it was proceeding on proper lines. Moreover as pointed out by the learned Member, if the concerned workmen are not held guilty and any punishment is imposed on them, the workmen will have their remedy to challenge the findings of the departmental enquiry as well as the punishment imposed on them. 10. In view of this position, I am of the opinion that, no interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court is called for. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected with no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.