wp5872,6221&6222.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5872/2011 Sau.Jijabai Gangaram Khandare -vs- Indo Unique Flame Ltd. WRIT PETN. NO.6221/2011 Sau.Mirabai Shankar Arpalliwar -vs- Indo Unique Flame Ltd. WRIT PETN. NO.6222/2011 Sau.Shakila Mohd.Asif -vs- Indo Unique Flame Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri V. D. Darne, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 22.12.2011. Since common issues arise for determination in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The petitioners claimed that they were engaged by the respondent No.1 as labourers and though they had completed two hundred fourty days of service, their services were orally terminated in the year 2007 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent denied the claim of the petitioners and sought that the reference made by the Additional Commissioner of Labour should be answered in the wp5872,6221&6222.11.odt 2/3 negative. The matters were fixed before the Labour Court from time to time from 20/06/2009, after the parties were served, till the reference was finally decided against the petitioners by separate awards dated 30/12/2010. Since the petitioners had not entered into the witness box and had not produced any evidence whatsoever in regard to their claim, the reference was answered in the negative. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners should not be made to suffer for the mistake of their counsel as their counsel had failed to remain present before the Labour Court on many occasions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had remained present before the Labour Court on a few dates and thereafter, their counsel had never informed the petitioners about the fixing of the matters for evidence, etc. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought for the remand of the matters to the Labour Court. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the roznama and the averments made in the petitions, it appears that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant a remand of the matters to the Labour Court. It is necessary to note that the reference was received by the Labour Court from the Additional Commissioner on 21/03/2009 and immediately the notices were issued to the parties and the parties were served since 20/06/2009. The matters were listed before the Labour Court and on wp5872,6221&6222.11.odt 3/3 16/04/2010 the petitioners were present before the Labour Court. Thereafter, though the matters were listed before the Labour Court on more than fifteen occasions neither the petitioners nor their counsel was present. It is stated in the writ petition that the counsel for the petitioners did not inform the petitioners that their matters were listed before the Labour Court for evidence. The petitioners have blamed their counsel but it is not stated in the writ petitions that at any point of time the petitioners approached their counsel to ask the progress of the matters pending before the Labour Court. The petitioners have not stated anything about the efforts on their part to secure the knowledge about the progress of the cases. It appears from the record that the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the matters. In this background, the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. It would also not be just to remand the matters when the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the matters and had not taken any steps whatsoever to secure the knowledge about the progress of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The remand of the matters cannot be ordered on the mere asking of the petitioners. In the result, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE