1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3774 OF 2008 (Dy. Conservator of Forest & Anr. vs. Vimal Vasudeo Raut ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2008. Nobody appears for the respondent, though notice for final disposal has been served on him long back. There was no appearance on 18.10.2008 and also on 7.11.2008 and hence one chance was given to him to appear and contest. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel seeks permission to join Industrial Court, Yavatmal, as Respondent No.2. Leave granted. The amendment be carried out forthwith. Shri Kankale, learned AGP upon request, waives notice for Respondent No.2. The present petitioners/ department of State Government challenged the judgment dated 30.1.2006, delivered by Labour Court, Yavatmal, in Complaint ULP No. 84 of 1998 by filing revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 2 MRTU & PULP Act) before the Industrial Court at Yavatmal. The said Revision was filed as Revision ULP No. 13 of 2006 and learned Member of Industrial Court has dismissed the revision by a short order dated 6.10.2006. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that various grounds raised in memo of revision have not been considered at all and therefore, the order shows total non application of mind. He states that correctness of exercise of Labour Court in granting relief of reinstatement to present respondent with continuity and other incidental benefits are not even looked into. He wants to rely upon various judgments to show to this Court how the question of reinstatement in service with the petitioners is required to be looked into. He further urges that under provisions of MRTU & PULP Act, there is no remedy of appeal and hence revision under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act, is required to be decided with more precaution. As already stated above, there is no appearance for respondent No.1. The perusal of impugned order shows that the learned Member of Industrial Court has not considered the arguments advanced before it and has only stated principles which govern the 3 jurisdiction under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act. There can be no dispute about this proposition. If paras 7, 9 and 10 of the impugned order are incorporated in any other judgment, the same will fit in that judgment. Thus, the necessary appreciation of controversy with reference to evidence on record and facts, in the light of arguments advanced, is absent. It is, therefore, apparent that Member of Industrial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction available to it in the matter. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 6.10.2006 by the Member of Industrial Court in ULP No. 13 of 2006 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Court for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. As the matter is old, the learned Member of Industrial Court shall decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 30.9.2009. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.