1 W.P.No.8126.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8126 OF 2010 Shri Rajesh Changdev Parge & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Girish B. Badigar for the petitioners. Mr.J.P.Cama with M.S.Subha Kher with Mrs.Prachi Raj Mhatre i/by M/s.M.S.Bodhanwalla & Co. for Resp. No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 18TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed by the workmen contending that the order passed by the Labour Court, Pune, refusing to restore Misc. Application (IDA) Nos.45 of 2007, 46 of 2007, 47 of 2007, 49 of 2007 and 8 of 2009, filed by the respective workman. 2. The Labour Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte award which was passed in 2004. The Labour Court concluded that the workmen had not made out 2 W.P.No.8126.10 sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and setting aside the ex-parte order. Aggrieved by the decision, the workmen have filed the present petition. 3. According to the learned advocate appearing for the workmen, the cross-examination was conducted by the Company only in respect of petitioner No.2, Radhakrishna Gomaji Waghamare. The cross-examination of the petitioner No.2 was treated as the cross-examination of the other workmen and they were not separately cross-examined before the Court. 4. I have perused a copy of the impugned order. In my opinion, the Labour Court has committed a serious error in dismissing the applications. In its order the Labour Court has not considered the reasons given by each of the workmen for approaching the Court late for setting aside the ex-parte orders. The Labour Court has adopted a novel procedure by accepting the cross-examination of Waghamare as the deposition of the other workmen. The basic requirement of cross-examination is that the witness must be questioned in Court by the opposite party. Merely pasting the cross- examination of one witness as the cross-examination of another, is unacceptable. The Labour Court cannot presume 3 W.P.No.8126.10 that the answers of the other workmen under cross- examination would be identical. The procedure adopted therefore by the Labour Court while considering these applications is untenable and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. 5. Apart from this, the Labour Court has stated that, “One will say sufficient cause is not explained properly by the applicant second party”. Who is the applicant second party that the Labour Court refers to in his order ? Is it Waghmare or any of the other workmen ? Hence, the order passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable therefore, must be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 7. The Labour Court will consider the miscellaneous applications afresh. 8. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 9. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. ..... 4 W.P.No.8126.10 5 W.P.No.8126.10