-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS PATENT PATENT PATENT APPEAL NO.82 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.82 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.82 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.1861 OF 2006 NO.1861 OF 2006 NO.1861 OF 2006 Infomedia India Employees Union ...Appellants v/s M/s Infomedia India Ltd. ...Respondents Mr S.N. Deshpande for Appellants. Mr Sanjay Dhulapkar for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND V.M. KANADE JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18th March 2006 by which the writ petition filed by the present appellants was dismissed. A complaint was filed by the present appellants under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 making a grievance about the change brought about by the employer in the working hours for a limited period. After the complaint was filed, a reply was filed. On behalf of the respondents, adjournments were taken on several occasions for leading oral evidence. Ultimately, the Industrial Court, Thane made an order declining adjournment for leading evidence. As the complainants did not lead any oral evidence, the employer also did not lead any oral evidence. There was also no documentary evidence led by the parties. The Industrial Court, Thane therefore dismissed the complaint in the absence of any documentary and oral evidence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred writ petition No.1861 of 2005 in this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court found that the order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane was perfectly -3- justified because there was no evidence led by the complainants either documentary or oral. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition because admittedly neither any documentary nor any oral evidence was led by the appellants. It was urged before us that because in the pleadings the documents were admitted, it was not necessary to lead any evidence. But perusal of the record shows that the appellants - complainants sought adjournments till March 2005 after the issues were framed on 26th February 2003 and the learned counsel appearing for appellants is not able to give any explanation as to why, according to the appellants, no oral evidence was necessary, though the documents were admitted, why adjournments were sought for leading oral evidence. There is no question of any document being admitted in pleadings because documents are not pleaded. If the documentary evidence is not pleaded, there is no question of documents being admitted. The procedure for admission of documents is laid down by law, admittedly that procedure was not followed. Therefore, before the Court, there was o documentary evidence and also no oral evidence. In our opinion, in such situation, the only option available to the Industrial Court was to dismiss the complaint. accordingly, the Industrial Court did so. We see nothing wrong in that. Appeal is therefore rejected. -4- . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( V.M. KANADE J.)