1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 508 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and others ...Petitioners Versus Aurangabad Zilla Shet Mazoor Union ...Respondent ..... Mr. M.L. Dharashive, advocate for the petitioners Mr. A.S. Shelke, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 20TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.6.2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in complaint (ULP) No. 234 of 2001. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner did not follow Section 9(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, which is mandatory in the nature and therefore, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein only in terms of prayer clause “A’ in the complaint and directed to pay Rs.2500/- towards expenses incurred for filing complaint. 2 2 The learned AGP invited my attention to the para 10 page 45 of the judgment of the Industrial Court and submitted that even the court has taken a note to the fact that notice was issued on 14.9.2001 the some of the employees have received the notice on 19.9.2001 and change was effected from 6.10.2001. According to the learned AGP written statement, which was filed before the Industrial Court specifically mentioned that 21 days notice as required under Section 9(A) was given and therefore, there is no reason for the Industrial Court to entertain the complaint. He therefore, prays that this petition may be allowed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention the para 28 of the judgment of the Industrial Court and submitted that witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner State was not able to tell that the notices are served on the members of the respondent and no evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner State. According to the learned counsel for the respondent from the receipt of notice no change can be effected within 21 days as per Section 9(A) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore, learned counsel submit that when the petitioner failed to prove its case before the Industrial Court, the Court has rightly entertained the complaint and granted prayer clause “A”. Therefore, no interference is called for. 4 After hearing learned AGP for the petitioner and the learned 3 counsel for the respondent and after perusal of the judgment and order of the Industrial Court and more particularly para 38 of the judgment, I am of the considered view that the State i.e. petitioner herein has utterly failed to follow the provisions of Section 9(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Even the witness who deposed on behalf of the State was not able to state that when notices are served on the member of the respondent Union. Apart from that even in this writ petition it is not demonstrated that from the date of receipt of notice, 21 days time was left in between i.e. between the date on which the notice was received by the members of the respondent Union and change effected by the petitioner. Therefore, no case is made for interference in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty in favour of the State to take appropriate steps if they so desire. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/