vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7691 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7691 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7691 OF 2008 Salbadra Baburao Patil ... Petitioner V/s. The Liquidator & Assistant Registrar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.D. Pise for Petitioner Mr.P.P. Kakade, AGP, for Respondent State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 8, 2009 APRIL 8, 2009 APRIL 8, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The petitioner was an employee of Respondent No.3 before it went into liquidation. The petitioner has filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.71 of 2002 before the Industrial Court for certain reliefs. Pending this complaint, an order for winding up of Respondent No.3 was passed by Respondent No.2 in 2006. Respondent No.1 was appointed as the Liquidator. The Petitioner, therefore, sought permission to implead the Liquidator as a party respondent to the proceedings pending before the Industrial Court. That application has been rejected by Respondent No.2 on the ground that the Liquidator is not personally liable for any acts of the employer. 3. Heard parties. : 2 : 4. In my opinion, Respondent No.2 has erred in passing the impugned order. The question of the Liquidator being personally liable for any acts of the erstwhile employer does not arise. All that the petitioner was seeking was to implead the Liquidator, who steps into the shoes of the company which is wound up, in the proceedings which are pending before the Industrial Court. This order/permission should have been passed and granted as a matter of course. In fact, the Division Bench in the case of Baburao Dadarao Kolhe & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2004(2) 2004(2) 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 898 Mh.L.J. 898 Mh.L.J. 898 has voiced its doubt about the application of section 107 to proceedings pending on the file of the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act. It is surprising that Respondent No.2 has not cared to consider this judgment which was delivered in 2004 itself while passing the impugned order. 5. The impugned order is therefore set aside. Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c).