bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5009 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5009 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5009 OF 2007 Mr.Sopanrao Anandrao Gavali ... Petitioner v/s The Audyogik Sahakari Vasahat Maryadit, malegaon, Dist.Nashik. ... Respondent Mr.S.S.Shah for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 1ST AUGUST, 2008 1ST AUGUST, 2008 1ST AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application No.132 of 2005. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:- The petitioner was employed with the respondent. His services were abruptly terminated in the year 1997. He, therefore, approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.88 of 1997. That complaint was allowed ex-parte since the respondent was not present on 30.10.2001. Thereafter the respondent preferred Misc. 2 Application (ULP) No.21 of 2001 before the Industrial Court for setting aside the ex-parte order passed in Complaint (ULP) No.88 of 1997. That application was also dismissed since the respondent failed to remain present in Court. The application for restoration of the ex-parte order was dismissed on 31.12.2002. An application for restoration of the Misc. Application No.21 of 2001 was filed by the respondent, bearing Misc. (ULP) Application No.2 of 2003. The petitioner opposed that application and contended that such an application was not maintainable. By an order dated 19.9.2005, that application was dismissed by the Labour Court. A revision application was filed by the respondent being Revision Application (ULP) No.134 of 2005. By order dated 20.4.2007, the said revision application was dismissed. The respondent has also filed the Revision Application (ULP) No.132 of 2005 challenging the order passed by the Labour Court dismissing Misc. Application (ULP) No.2 of 2003. This revision application was allowed by the Industrial Court on 20.4.2007. Hence the present petition. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Industrial Court could not have restored the application since the respondent had adopted two proceedings, one by filing Revision Application (ULP) No.132 of 2005 3 challenging the order passed in Misc. Application (ULP) No.21 of 2001 and the other filed before the Labour Court itself being Misc. Application (ULP) No.2 of 2003. A contention is also raised that the revision application filed by the Vice Chairman of the respondent is not maintainable in view of the bye-laws applicable to the respondent. It is further submitted that no cogent reasons have been given by the Industrial Court for restoring the original proceedings before the Labour Court. 4. The learned advocate for the respondent has opposed the submissions of the petitioner, contending that the respondent should have a chance to represent his case before the Labour Court by putting the respondent to some terms and conditions. He submits that, on merits the respondent has a good case which ought to be taken into consideration before the Labour Court decides the complaint. 5. The Industrial Court has observed that it is empowered to restore an application for restoration which had been dismissed for default, without considering the position as to whether in law such an application is maintainable. In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Labour Court to 4 decide the Complaint (ULP) No.88 of 1997 afresh within a stipulated time, rather than deciding the maintainability of the application for restoration. The respondent has not yet filed its written statement before the Labour Court. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to restore the complaint on the following terms and conditions being complied:- (i) Complaint (ULP) No.88 of 1008 is restored to the file of the Presiding Officer, Nashik, on condition that the respondent deposits Rs.5,00,000/- in the Labour Court within a period of six weeks from today. This amount has been arrived at on the basis of the statement handed in by the petitioner. Although the statement is disputed by the respondent, most of the amounts appear to be accepted and hence the order for depositing Rs.5,00,000/- which is part of the amount due and payable to the petitioner, according to law. (ii) The respondent shall file its written statement within four weeks from today. 6. The matter being old, shall proceed expeditiously. The Labour Court shall endeavour to complete the proceedings by 31st December, 2008. 5 7. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.