1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4173/2010 M/s Nava Bharat Press, Nagpur Vs. Shrikant L. Childle and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. R. Atrey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Thakur, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2010. 1] Heard Advocate Atrey for the petitioner. 2] Learned counsel has urged that it is error on his part. He has pointed out that there were other matters and all matters were going on simultaneously. Somewhere in the year 2006 the present ULPs complaints got separated and went unattended. Learned counsel states that as it is error on his part, the Industrial Court, therefore, should have permitted the petitioner to participate in adjudication. He also argues that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for errors on the part of the Advocate. 3] I have heard these arguments on 27.8.2010 also and hence the chance was given to the petitioner to show their bonafides. Advocate Atrey has today also requested Advocate Thakur, who appears for employees before the Industrial Court to remain present and accordingly, Advocate Thakur is also present. 2 4] After hearing the parties, I find nothing on record to show that after 2006 in other group of matters the counsel has continued to appear. Therefore, it cannot be said that present bunch of ULP complaints were left out inadvertently, The petitioner is attempting to push back ULP complaints filed by the employees about 7 years back. The petitioner, however, has not agreed to compensate them suitably. Learned counsel has stated that he will personally pay amount of Rs. 500/- to the employees. Advocate Thakur has urged that he is not in a position to give no objection in the matter and he opposes any interference in the matter. 5] Perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the applications seeking leave to participate and for dismissal of complaints as not maintainable were moved on 16.8.2010 when the Industrial Court was hearing the final arguments on merits in ULP Complaints. 6] The Industrial Court has considered all relevant facts. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 7] The petitioner have not shown their bonafides even before this Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.