1 wp 6289.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2011 Bharat Engineering Works, Ahmednagar Through Proprietor .. Petitioner Versus Vaijanta Balasaheb Warangale .. Respondent Shri P. S. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent had filed ULP bearing No. 59/1998 against the present petitioner. The said complaint came to be allowed on 22 nd April, 2002. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed Miscellaneous ULP No. 19/2008 for setting aside the said ex- parte judgment. The Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar rejected the said application on the ground that the delay of six years has not been explained. Said order is assailed in the present petition. 2 wp 6289.11 2. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the application has in detail submitted the reasons for not being in a position to challenge the award of the year 2002. The petitioner unit was closed and even the proceedings were going on before the D. R. T. Even in Criminal ULP, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the authorities all the aspects and as such the award of 2002 could not be challenged. According to the learned counsel the Industrial Court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits by setting aside the ex-parte judgment and condoning the delay. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the application and the order. The Industrial Court had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent on 22.04.2002 directing the petitioner to apply the minimum wages and provide facilities such as application of provident fund benefit, maternity leave. The said order dated 22.04.2002 was not challenged till the year 2008. For the first time in the year 2008, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte award. The Industrial Court has discussed about the fact that the petitioner has not been in a position to prove the averrments made in the 3 wp 6289.11 application. The petitioner has not led any evidence. Factually the Industrial Court was not in error in rejecting the application. Even otherwise, the award passed by the Industrial Court after one month cannot be set aside, as the Court become functus officio as is held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of South Seas Distilleries and Breweries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deepak R. Patne reported in 2003 (3) Bom. L. R. 167. 4. In view of above, no merit in the writ petition. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11