wp6334.99.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6334 OF 1999 M/s. Satya Gas Chem. Co. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Jayshree Jagdish Koli & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Y.C. Naidu, with Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni i/by M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish Pagaria i/by Mr. S.M. Oak for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. S.M. Vidyarthi for Respondent No.9. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 22nd April, 2010 P.C.:- 1 Called out from the final hearing/disposal board. 2 The Petitioner-Employer had challenged the main order dated 07/02/1998, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation / Labour Court, Thane, whereby the Application filed by the claimants- Applicants was allowed, basically against the Petitioner-original Opponent No.1. The same was dismissed against Original Opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. As the Petitioner was not heard in the matter at the relevant time, though a written statement was filed. A miscellaneous Application was filed to set aside the order dated 07/02/1998. The said application was also dismissed wp6334.99.sxw 2 by the impugned order dated 26/05/1999 by observing in paragraph 5 that there was no sufficient reason adduced by the Applicant-Petitioner for the purpose of setting aside the ex-parte order. It is clear from the order itself that the Petitioner was not heard and no opportunity was given to contest the matter. There are serious triable issues raised which need hearing of the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s case was overlooked. The averments as well as the contentions so raised in the claim Petition were accepted in absence of cross-examination by holding that it remains untouched. The contents of the written statement, so filed also remained untouched. 3 The specific averments made in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 are also additional factor which supports that the Petitioner was never heard and the award/order was passed ex-parte. The reason so expressed in those paragraphs, in my view, are sufficient reason to consider the case of remand the matter as submitted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, by keeping all points open the impugned orders dated 07/02/1998 and 26/05/1999 are quashed and set aside. The learned Labour Court, Thane to decide the application after giving full opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the same preferably within six months. 4 The parties are at liberty, to settle the matter. 5 However, it is made clear that the amount so deposited and wp6334.99.sxw 3 withdrawn by the original claimant-Applicant need not be recovered until the final award passed by the Commissioner, as referred above. 6 It is also made clear that the remand, basically at the instance of the Petitioner in view of above. The findings so recorded, so far as other Respondents are concerned, are kept open for adjudication, so that the appropriate order can be passed by the Commissioner in the ends of justice. 7 The Record and Proceedings be sent immediately to the concerned Labour Court. 8 The Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)