bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2008 1. Ananda Maruti Majgaonkar & 14 ors. ... Petitioners (in both petitions) v/s Central Iron Works, through its partners - 1. Shri Mukund Vishnupant Utkur 2. Smt. Prabha Gajanan Kelkar 3. Shri Anil Vishnupant Utkur ... Respondents (in both petitions) Shri Anil Borkar for the petitioners in both petitions. Shri Sudhir Talsania i/by Shri S.S.Pakale for the respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dated 23.1.2008 setting aside the ex-parte order dated 4.1.1997. 2. The facts involved in the present petition are the same as the facts in Writ Petition No.4991 of 2008. Therefore they are not repeated in this judgment. An application for setting aside the ex-parte order was made initially on 7.2.1997 by respondent No.3 and the 2 firm i.e. Central Iron Works. This application was dismissed for default on 24.2.1999. No application was filed by the respondents for setting aside the order. The respondents did not care to file a writ petition either before this Court challenging that order. However, a fresh application was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 31.1.2006 being Misc. Application (IDA) No.1 of 2006. This application does not disclose the fact that an earlier application being Misc. Application No.3 of 1997 had been filed by the firm and that it had been dismissed on 24.2.1990. 3. It is in these circumstances, the Labour Court has set aside the ex-parte order and restored the Application (IDA) No.159 of 1995 to file. The Labour Court allowed the miscellaneous application and therefore the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court. By an order dated 20.6.2007 the respondents were directed to deposit the decretal amount in the Labour Court as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex-parte order. Being aggrieved by the order, the respondents approached the Supreme Court by preferring a S.L.P. The Supreme Court has directed the deposit of Rs.50,000/- instead of the decretal amount by its order dated 27.8.2007. 3 4. The grievance made by the petitioners in this petition is similar to one in Writ Petition No.4991 of 2008 inasmuch as the application for setting aside the order has been filed belatedly, in fact, after 11 years. It is also contended that non-disclosure of the earlier application having been filed by the firm and respondent No.3 vitiates the subsequent application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that this is because the firm had filed the application through one of its partner who represented the others. 5. In my opinion, the non-disclosure of the earlier application goes to the root of the matter. Respondents 1 and 2 cannot contend that since the firm had no notice of the application being filed, they were entitled to prosecute the application. When the earlier application was filed by the firm raising the same contentions, it had been dismissed on 24.2.1999. Therefore the respondents would have no option but to challenge that order in this Court or to have the order set aside under the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. Having not done so, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot therefore take recourse to filing another application on the same ground that the firm was not served. 6. The order setting aside the ex-parte order is, 4 therefore, set aside. 7. Writ petition allowed.