1 WP 6004.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6004 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt..Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for the respondent. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :11/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The Respondent had filed a Complaint U/s 28 (1) read with Item Nos. 6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ] 2. The respondent claimed that the members of the Union are working as casual or temporary employees on the establishment of the petitioners. The work entrusted was to work on plantation, nurseries, supervision, etc. They claim regularization of service. The Industrial Court issued notices. The present petitioners did not attend the same. The Industrial Court allowed the Complaint and directed the present petitioners to regularize the services of the 2 WP 6004.2011 employees named in the scheduled annexed with the Complaint. The said Judgment was delivered on 22/03/1995. The petitioners did not take any steps for five ( 5 ) years. Thereafter, on 14/02/2000 filed Misc. Application No. 1 of 2000 for setting aside the exparte Judgment. The Industrial Court rejected the said application by its order dated 21/09/2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed on or about 4/8/2011. 3. Mr. R.P. Phatake, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submits that the petitioners could not appear before the Industrial Court in the Complaint as the original Complaint was filed at Aurangabad. Thereafter, it was transferred to Jalna Court and no notice was issued by the Industrial Court, Jalna to the present petitioners. Due to the transfer of the matter from Aurangabad to Jalna and non service of the notice, the petitioners could not appear. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader contends that this aspect has not been considered by the Industrial Court. The learned Assistant Govt. pleader contends that after the Misc. Application for setting aside the exparte Judgment was rejected in the year 2005, the petitioners did not get the knowledge of the same and after getting the knowledge, a proposal was sent. After the proposal was sent, the approval was sought for from the Law and Judiciary department and thereafter the petition is filed at the earliest. According to the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, 3 WP 6004.2011 there is manifest error in the order passed by the Industrial Court. 4. Mr. S.T. Shelke, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that ample opportunity has been given to the petitioners but they failed to avail the said opportunity. The petitioners can not claim premium over their negligence. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are guilty of committing unfair labour practice and this has rightly been considered by the Industrial Court. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the impugned orders. 6. The ground taken by the petitioners that no notice of the transfer of the matter from Aurangabad to Jalna was served on the petitioners, is found to be incorrect by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has observed as under, “ the reason stated for non appearance of the petitioners in the said complaint are not bonafide and satisfactory because on account of transfer of case, notices were already issued to the parties . So only for the purpose of setting aside exparte order, the petitioners have put-forth the reason of no knowledge about the transfer of the case from Aurangabad to Jalna and non service of notices ”. The petitioners can not take advantage of their own wrong. The respondents had filed the proceedings in the year 1993. The same came to be decided in the year 1995. 4 WP 6004.2011 Thereafter, in the year 2000, the application was made for setting aside exparte order, which came to be rejected in the year 2005 and after a long slumber of six ( 6 ) years, the Writ Petition is filed challenging the said order. No proper explanation is given for not challenging the said order passed on 21/09/2005 earlier. During the pendency of the application for setting aside the exparte Judgment, the Judgment was not stayed by the Industrial Court. There is no propriety to unsettle the position after sixteen ( 16 ) years that too when the petitioners are grossly negligent in prosecuting the matter. Even otherwise, the ground put-forth by the petitioners for setting aside exparte Judgment is found to be incorrect by the Industrial Court. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6004.2011 5 WP 6004.2011