1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2539 OF 2010 Rajendra Nagesh Thakur .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16th APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Petitioner herein is raising exception to the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon on 12-2-2010 thereby confirming the order passed by the Labour Court, Jalgaon on 12-2-2009. 2 Petitioner herein presented complaint ULP no. 225/2000 for setting aside the order of oral termination issued by the respondent / Municipal Corporation. Complaint presented by the complainant came to be allowed on 29-10-2003 and the order impugned by the petitioner in complaint has been quashed and set aside and it is directed to the employer to reinstate 2 the employee / petitioner herein in service. An application came to be presented by the employer for setting aside the order passed in ULP no. 225/2000 on the ground that the said order has been passed without considering the objections of the employer. It is contended that there was no evidence led on behalf of the employer and for the reasons stated in the application, the order which is passed ex-parte on earlier occasion needs to be set aside with further direction permitting the respondent / employer to lead evidence. On consideration of the contentions raised by the employer in Misc. ULP no. 3/2004, application tendered by the employer came to be allowed and the order passed in ULP no. 225/2000 on 29-10-2003 came to be set aside. Order passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court was subjected to challenge by the employee / petitioner herein in revision application ULP no. 16/2009. Revision application, however, after considering the contentions of both the parties, came to be partly allowed. Order passed by the Labour Court restoring the complaint ULP no. 225/2000 is maintained, however, the employer was directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/-. 3 I have perused both the orders passed by the courts below. It is not controverted that the initial order passed in ULP no. 225/2000 is issued without there being any evidence placed on record by the employer. It is 3 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed in ULP no. 225/2000 cannot be termed as ex-parte as the respondent / employer had caused his appearance in the matter. The fact, however, remains that there was no evidence led on behalf of the respondent / employee. Considering the nature of the controversy raised by the parties, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in the instant petition, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the order passed in ULP no. 225/2000 on 29-10-2003, the petitioner / employee has been reinstated in service and is in employment. The petitioner shall remain in employment with the Municipal Corporation subject to final outcome of the complaint bearing ULP no. 225/2000. The services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with during the continuance of the complaint and, continuance of the services of the petitioner with the respondent / Corporation shall be subject to final decision in the complaint ULP no. 225/2000. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the instant petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 4 5 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2539.10.odt