( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4336/2009 (Dilip Daulat Parnate -vs- Executive Engineer) 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. DATED : DECEMBER 7, 2009. Considering the nature of controversy writ petition is heard finally. Advocate Shri Dubey for respondent is seeking time. However, his request is rejected. Advocate Shri Verma for petitioner-employee states that petitioner was working on daily wages and put in about six years of service before his termination. The petitioner had challenged his termination in 1994 in ULP Case No.219/1994, that was dismissed on 03/01/2000 by learned Labour Court, Akola. Petitioner then filed ULP Revision No.128/2000 before Industrial Court at Akola. He was told by his Advocate that intimation would be given to him, after the revision would be listed for final hearing. He accordingly waited for communication from Advocate till 2008 and when he did not get any communication, first went to Industrial Court and learnt that his revision was disposed of on 22/06/2005. After obtaining certified copy, present writ petition has been filed. Advocate Shri Verma placed reliance upon judgment of this Court reported in 2000 Vol. ( 2 ) 87 AIR 656; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation -vs- Abdul Usman Meboob Shaikh to urge that revision could not have been disposed of by such cryptic order and the contentions raised should have been evaluated. Advocate Shri Dubey without prejudice to his rights because of rejection of his request, states that the petition has been filed after about four years and the latches on the part of petitioner are apparent. He further argues that when petitioner was not present before Industrial Court, the Industrial Court rightly proceeded to decide the controversy and impugned order does not call for any interference. Perusal of impugned order reveals that Industrial Court has recorded finding that employee has not made out any apparent error on the face of record or has not shown how the findings of Labour Court are not supported by material or evidence on record. Therefore, it has dismissed the revision. Thus, by impugned order, the revision has not been dismissed in default and foregoing conclusions only are stated. By changing the date of order of Labour Court and ULP complaint number, the said order can be used in any ULP Revision. In short, necessary facts are not disclosed and hence it is clear that there is failure to exercise jurisdiction. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight that petitioner or his counsel did not assist Industrial Court and petitioner is approaching this Court after about four years of the said order of Industrial Court. The interest of respondent department, therefore, needs to be protected. The petitioner, therefore, is held not entitled to claim any wages for the period from 22/06/2005 till ULP Revision is again finally ( 3 ) disposed of on merits by Industrial Court. Subject to this the order passed below Exhibit-1 is quashed and set aside. ULP Revision 128/2000 is restored to the file of Industrial Court at Akola. The parties are directed to appear before that Court on 18th January, 2010 and to abide by its further directions. The Industrial Court shall endeavour to decide ULP Revision as early as possible and in any case by 30th August, 2010. The Industrial Court shall keep in mind that petitioner is not entitled to any wages for the period from 22/06/2005 till it decides revision, in case, it decides to grant some relief to the petitioner/employee. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Khunte.