1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1147 OF 2008 The Estate Manager Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Solapur ..Petitioner. Vs. Kerappa Umaji Ramoshi ..Respondent. .... Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 18th June, 2008. P.C. : 1. These proceedings arise out of a judgment of the Industrial Court at Solapur by which a statutory appeal under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 came to be dismissed. The Respondent moved the Labour Court at Solapur under Section 78 (A) (1-A) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act claiming that he was engaged as a casual worker since 1st February, 1974 until his services were terminated on 27th December, 1987. The Respondent claimed that he had completed 240 days of continuous service. The Labour Court by its judgment dated 30th October, 1996 allowed the claim and granted reinstatement with 2 full backwages. The order of the Labour Court was confirmed in appeal by the Industrial Court on 31st March, 2005. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the Industrial Court was seized of a statutory appeal under the Act there has been absolutely no independent consideration of the merits of the case by the Industrial Court. Ex facie, the submission which has been urged by the learned advocate would require to be accepted. A perusal of the judgment of the Industrial Court would show that after recording the submissions the Industrial Court merely observed that having heard the contentions of the parties, there was no substance found in the grounds of appeal and that the findings were not perverse. The grounds of appeal before the Industrial Court reveal that there were several substantive contentions that were urged before the Industrial Court. None of the submissions has been evaluated on merits by the Industrial Court. In a statutory appeal provided under the Act, the Industrial Court ought to have considered the submissions and arrived at its findings. In the absence of this exercise being carried out, it would only be appropriate and proper if the proceedings are remitted back to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision on the appeal. 3 Since the Respondent has not appeared in these proceedings despite notice, it would be necessary for this Court to clarify that the Petition has been allowed only on the grounds mentioned herein above and the Industrial Court shall duly consider the merits of the rival contentions after hearing the parties. 3. In the circumstances, the order of the Industrial Court dated 31st March, 2005 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings shall stand remitted back to the Industrial Court which shall proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal after furnishing the parties an opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. *****