2808wp451.09.odt 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 451 OF 2009 Sudhakar Pant Paricharak and others vs. Prabhakar Vasantrao Nikhare -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 28TH AUGUST, 2009. Shri R.S. Charpe, the learned Counsel appears for the petitioners. None for the respondent. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners at the stage of admission. The petitioners want the process issued in terms of order dated 24th January, 2008 against the petitioners passed by the learned Judge of 4th Labour Court, Nagpur in Criminal ULP Complaint Case No. 6 of 2007 be quashed and set aside. I have heard the learned Counsel Shri Charpe appearing on behalf of the petitioners. By the impugned complaint, the respondent wants that he should get the benefits which have been conferred upon him in the earlier litigation between the petitioners and the respondent on the basis of the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court. According to the respondent, the petitioners are not conferring those benefits and that is how the 2808wp451.09.odt 2/5 present proceedings bearing Criminal ULP Complaint Case No. 6 of 2007 have been launched. After having considered the record, I am inclined to observe that this is not the case where the Court should intervene and quash the process issued by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. If certain benefits were sought to be conferred upon the respondent in terms of the order of learned Member, Industrial Court, it was obligatory upon the petitioners to give those benefits. The said order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court became the subject matter of challenge and that order came to be modified in terms of Writ Petition No. 4166 of 2005. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the modified order by itself grants no benefits to the respondents and, therefore, the respondent cannot claim any such benefits. In my view, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has issued process way back on 24th January, 2008 i.e. more than one and half years passed and that is how this application for quashing of the process has been filed. In my view, on the question of delay, the petitioners may not be able to call upon this Court to go into the question of issuance of process and to that extent, I am not inclined to interfere in the order of issuance of process. The learned Counsel appearing on 2808wp451.09.odt 3/5 behalf of the petitioners has tendered in the Court a fax copy of the summons issued to the petitioners, namely, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman i.e. the petitioner No.1; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Division, Nagpur through its Divisional Controller Shri Arvind Bagade i.e. the petitioner No.2; and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ghat Road, Nagpur, through its Divisional Store Officer Shri G.V. Patil i.e. the petitioner No.3. He pointed out that by the said summons, all these three persons are directed to remain present in person and continue to remain present till their discharge. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are being represented by the learned Counsel before the learned Judge of the Labour Court and, therefore, the presence of the aforesaid petitioners is not required on each and every date. He submitted that appropriate orders be passed so that the presence of the petitioners in person is dispensed with or otherwise the said order of summons may prove to be something causing inconvenience to the petitioners who are the employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and are not the parties to the proceedings in their personal capacity. After having considered the text of the summons and after having understood the 2808wp451.09.odt 4/5 subject matter of the litigation which is pending before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, I hold that the presence of the petitioners in person is not required on each and every date particularly when the petitioners will be represented by an Advocate. It is also required to be noted that the petitioners are holding office and are working with the organization by name Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation which happens to be the employer of the respondent. Hence, request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners mentioned above can be granted by passing an order in their favour in following terms at the admission stage. No interference is required in the order of issuance of process. It is clarified that the petitioners in their capacity as opponents before the learned Judge of the Labour Court are free to raise all contentions on merits. No views are expressed on the same. It is hereby ordered that the personal presence of the petitioners is dispensed with insofar as the proceedings before the Labour Court i.e. Criminal ULP Complaint Case No. 6 of 2007 is concerned. They need not remain present on each and every date. If the learned Judge of the Labour Court wants the presence of all the petitioners or anyone of them for the specific purpose to attend to the dispute between the respondent and the petitioners, he shall pass 2808wp451.09.odt 5/5 an order in advance. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms at the admission stage itself. Copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges for production of the same before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Nagpur. JUDGE rrg.