1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 605 OF 2010 (Smt. Vimal Shnkar Jagtap & Ors. vs. The CEO, ZP, Yavatmal & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 23, 2010. Heard finally Shri Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ghurde, learned counsel for respondents. The Industrial Court has refused to register Revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act), on the ground that it suffers from delay and laches and those laches are not explained satisfactorily. Shri Meghe, learned counsel points out that Complaint ULP was filed by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of other petitioners before Labour Court at Yavatmal, challenging his dismissal from service. He had worked from 1973 till November 1995. He expired during the pendency of that complaint and the petitioners being legal representatives were not aware of pendency of that complaint or then its subsequent dismissal by the Labour Court on 15.12.2000. 2 After getting knowledge of that dismissal, revision under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act was filed. He contends that Section 44 does not expressly provide for any limitation and in this situation, the explanation put forth by the petitioners ought to have been accepted. He further states that before the Industrial Court the petitioners did not enter witness box to substantiate these facts. Shri Ghurde, learned counsel for the respondents states that reasons being pressed into service are incorrect. The legal representatives were brought on record before Labour Court and as they did not participate in spite of opportunity and knowledge, ultimately it decided ex parte on 15.12.2000. He further points out that the necessary facts are not proved before the Industrial Court and hence the judgment delivered by Industrial Court refusing to register revision by condoning delay calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel, I find that the deceased Shankar was in employment from 1973 till 04.11.1995 and then he challenged his dismissal by filing Complaint ULP No. 7 of 1996. The complaint was decided finally on merits on 15.12.2000 but behind the back of the petitioners. Whether the petitioners were aware of pendency of that complaint and whether they deliberately kept themselves away from those proceedings or they were not aware of those proceedings, are the disputed questions of facts. At this 3 stage, it will not be appropriate to draw any inference about the motive of the petitioners but in any case it is apparent that by keeping themselves away from those proceedings and then by filing revision belatedly, they do not stand to gain anything. This, however, does not mean that the objections being raised by Shri Ghurde, learned counsel are without any merit. The question whether there were just and sufficient reasons for not approaching the Industrial Court within the reasonable time under Section 44 of the MRTU & PUPL Act is basically a question of fact. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate to permit the petitioners to enter witness box and to depose in support of their stand so that the respondents also get an opportunity to cross examine them to point out the Industrial Court the alleged incorrectness in their story. Only for said purpose, the judgment dated 01.10.2009 delivered by the Industrial Court in Misc. Application (ULP) No. 5 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The said Misc. Application is restored back to the file of Industrial Court, Yavatmal, for taking fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the parties. As the matter is old, the Industrial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. The parties to appear before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, on 15th June 2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. 4 Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.