1 WP 4846.2008 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4846 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Y.I.Thole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for the Respondent. ............................... CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :24/08/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition filed by an employee though his complaint has been allowed. 2. The present petitioner had filed Complaint ULP No. 33 of 2006 claiming multi ferrous reliefs. The present respondent, it seems, did not file any pleadings and the matter proceeded exparte. The learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad allowed the Complaint and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 37,313/- within the period of two ( 2 ) months. It also came to the conclusion that the respondent is engaged in unfair labour practice. 3. Mr. Thole, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 WP 4846.2008 submits that though the Complaint has been allowed, still it can not be said that the Industrial Court has considered the matter in its correct perspective. It has relied on the provisions which were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Industrial Court has relied on the provisions of Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. There was no material on record for the Court to apply the provisions of Section 25- FFF of the said Act in view of the fact that there were no pleadings of unavoidable circumstances for the closure. The petitioner had nowhere admitted any of these aspects. Even the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion about the closure. The learned counsel contends that the matter may be remitted back to the Industrial Court to consider it afresh. 4. Mr. Ghuge, the learned counsel for the respondent strenuously submits that once the Complaint filed by the petitioner is allowed, then the petitioner has no locus standi to assail the said Complaint in the present Writ Petition. The learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and rightly applied the provisions of Section 25-FFF of the said Act. In the Judgment, it has been observed that the petitioner has not seriously challenged the closure. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly resorted to Section 25-FFF of the said Act. 3 WP 4846.2008 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Complaint and the Judgment. 6. The Respondent has not filed any pleadings on record nor the petitioner had, at any point of time, stated that the Respondent has resorted to closure and the same is due to unavoidable reasons. In such circumstances, it is not clear as to on what basis the Tribunal has resorted to Section 25- FFF of the said Act. The provisions that are relied by the Tribunal while passing the impugned Judgment and awarding wages and compensation, are not attracted as per the pleadings of the Complaint. 7. The case of the Complainant was that he was in service till April, 2006 and he was not paid his salary till April, 2006. In light of those averments, the Tribunal was required to decide the matter, more particularly, in absence of any pleadings from the respondent. 8. Taking into account the fact that even the respondent could not file the pleadings, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Industrial Court by setting aside the impugned order. 9. In the result, I pass the following order. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated to the Industrial Court for deciding the Complaint ULP No. 33 of 2006 afresh. The Respondent 4 WP 4846.2008 shall have opportunity to file the Written Statement. The Industrial Court shall, after affording the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence, decide the matter on its own merits. The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad on 12/09/2011. The present respondent shall file its Written Statement within the period of four ( 4 ) weeks thereafter and the Industrial Court shall decide the Complaint ULP No. 33 of 2006 within the period of six ( 6 ) months from the date of appearance of the parties. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid directions. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6017.2011