JUDGMENT Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the common order dated 29/10/2010 passed by the College Tribunal, Nagpur, by which order the Appeals filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 59 of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 came to be partly allowed and the petitioner-management, which was the respondent No.1 in the Appeals was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry against the appellant i.e. the respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions from the stage as was prevailing on 31/05/2006 i.e. after the application to allow cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the presenting officer. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petitions are stated thus. The respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions were the employees of the petitioner management, which is a public trust (The respondent No.2 in each of the petitions would be referred to as the "said respondents"). The respondent in Writ Petition No.1426/2011 was employed as clerk and the respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1427/2011 was employed as Library Assistant. The said respondents in each of the petitions were charge-sheeted by the petitioner management and enquiry was commenced against them. Pursuant to the gamut of processes being completed by the management in respect of issuance of chargesheet and constitution of enquiry committee, etc., it appears that an enquiry against the said respondents was completed on 05/07/2006, pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the petitioner management. Thereafter show cause notices came to be issued to the said respondents in each of the petitions on or about 07/07/2006. The said respondents on receipt of the said show cause notices challenged the same by filing a complaint under Section 28 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and filed an application for stay under Section 30(2) of the said Act seeking stay to the effect and operation of the show cause notices dated 07/07/2006 during the pendency of the complaint. The concerned Labour Court rejected the application filed in the complaint by each of the respondent No.2 herein for interim relief. The concerned Labour Court rejected the application filed in the complaint by each of the respondent No.2 herein for interim relief. It is after the rejection of the interim relief by the Labour Court by order dated 11/09/2006, that the termination order came to be served on the said respondents on 29/09/2006. The said respondents thereafter filed revision applications against the order dated 11/09/2006, by which stay came to be refused by the Labour Court. The said revision applications were dismissed by the Industrial Court. As mentioned above, the termination order was already served on the said respondents on 29/09/2006. After the dismissal of their revision applications, the said respondents filed writ petition bearing Nos.6150/2006 and 6146/2006, which came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 29/01/2007. The respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1426/2011 thereafter filed Complaint U.L.P. No.27/2006 in which a direction was sought against the petitioner management seeking withdrawal of the termination order dated 29/09/2006 and permission to join duty till 31st October, 2006. The said application also came to be rejected by the Labour Court on 30/10/2006. It appears that much after this, the Appeals were filed by the said respondents before the College Tribunal against the said termination order dated 29/09/2006. In the said Appeals the termination was challenged inter alia on various grounds urged in the Appeals, which were mainly relating to the irregularities in the manner in which the enquiry was conducted by the petitioner management and thereby alleging violation of the principles of natural justice. It is required to be noted that the remedy of Appeal is provided under Section 59 of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The said provision is reproduced as under :- "It is postulated in the proviso to Section 59 that, "no such appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case where the matter has already been decided by a court or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction or is pending before such court or Tribunal on the date of commencement of this Act or where the order of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was passed by the management at any time before the date on which this Act comes into force and in which case the period of filing an appeal has expired." 4. In the instant petitions the conspectus of facts as narrated above ex facie disclose that against the show cause notices issued to the said respondents, they had invoked the provisions of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 by filing a complaint and thereafter had pursued the statutory remedy as provided under the said Act, even after the passing of the termination order dated 29/09/2006, the said respondents had also approached this Court as indicated above by way of Writ Petition Nos.6150/2006 and 6146/2006 on the denial of the interim reliefs to them. In my view, therefore, in the context of the proviso to Section 59, the consideration of the said conspectus of facts was germane to the consideration as to whether the petitioners were entitled at all to file the Appeal before the College Tribunal. It is required to be noted that though the complaint U.L.P. filed by the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1427/2011 has been withdrawn on 16/03/2011 that would not further the case of the respondent No.1 in any manner in so far as the maintainability of the Appeal is concerned. In so far as the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1426/2011 is concerned, the complaint U.L.P. filed by him is yet pending. 5. The impugned order of the College Tribunal does not disclose that the College Tribunal has considered the said aspect of the matter more so when the said respondents had themselves pointed out the filing of the said proceedings. In fact, a reading of the order discloses that the College Tribunal has not even adverted to the said facts and has proceeded to decide the Appeal on merits oblivious of the said previous proceedings filed by the said respondents which would have a bearing on the maintainability of the Appeals before it. 6. In my view, the consideration of the filing of the proceedings by the said respondents by invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 was a relevant consideration. In absence of which consideration, the impugned order of the College Tribunal can only be stated to be vitiated. In that view of the matter, the above writ petitions would have to be allowed. In absence of which consideration, the impugned order of the College Tribunal can only be stated to be vitiated. In that view of the matter, the above writ petitions would have to be allowed. The impugned common order passed by the College Tribunal dated 29/10/2010 in Appeal Nos.6-A/ 2007 and 7-A/ 2007 is set aside and the Appeals are remanded back to the College Tribunal for a de novo consideration, after taking into consideration the aspect of the earlier proceedings filed by the said respondents by way of complaint U.L.Ps. and after so taking into consideration the said aspect, to decide whether the said respondents were entitled to file the Appeals before it. 7. The learned counsel for the parties make a statement that they would appear before the College Tribunal on 11th July, 2011. On remand the College Tribunal to decide the Appeals as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four months from 11th July, 2011. 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with parties to bear their own costs.