1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No. 298/2011 in WRIT PETITION No. 4815/2009 (D) (Udaybhan s/o Dhanuji Atram .vs. The Hon’ble Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur and others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mrs. G. Venkatraman, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, AGP for Respondent no.1. Mr. V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 21, 2011 Heard finally. The appellant was brought on C.R.T.E. in 1981 and retired on superannuation in 2001. The appellant contends that after coming on C.R.T.E., he was working as Road Roller Driver. He claims difference between wages payable to Helper and Road Roller Driver. The Industrial Court dismissed his Complaint ULP No. 341/2006 on 31.3.2009 holding it to be barred by limitation and also on merits holding him not entitled to that benefit. Advocate Mrs. Venkatraman in this background points out that in Writ Petition No. 4815/2009 on 13.1.2011 the learned Single Judge of this Court has found that complaint was not barred by limitation. In view of this finding, it is her contention 2 that learned Single Judge could not have embarked upon inquiry on merits to find out whether the appellant has proved his entitlement inasmuch as said consideration on merits by Industrial Court was without jurisdiction. She, therefore, prays for remand of the matter back to Industrial Court to consider the evidence on record afresh for recording appropriate findings. Advocate Shri Palshikar for respondents no.2 and 3 and learned AGP Shri Fulzele for respondent no.1 are opposing request. According to Shri Palshikar, the appellant did not have necessary licence and still he has attempted to show that he has worked as Road Roller Driver. We find the contention on merits misconceived at this stage. The Industrial Court having found that complaint was barred by limitation could not have embarked upon inquiry on merits and could not have recorded any finding about the said entitlement of the appellant. Thus findings recorded are, therefore, without jurisdiction. In this situation, the material on record needs to be looked into afresh by Industrial Court after giving parties opportunity to advance oral arguments for said purpose. The impugned judgment of Industrial Court dated 31.3.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and proceedings in Complaint ULP No. 341/2006 are restored back to file of the Industrial Court. Industrial Court, Nagpur shall proceed to hear the counsel for parties on material available on record and take appropriate decision on merits of the controversy as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months 3 after the parties appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 24.8.2011. L.P.A. is thus partly allowed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai