1 wp2806.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2806 OF 2011 Rangnath Shripati Mali, Age: 57 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Patil Galli, At Post Paranda, Tq.Paranda Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad (Works Division), Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. This writ petition raised important point that though the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No. 54 of 1993 under Section 17 of the Industrial 2 wp2806.11 Disputes Act, the Member, Industrial Court, Latur has dismissed the complaint on assumption that said award passed in the Reference is not published, since it was not placed before it. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to Exhibit-B of the compilation of the petition, which is at Page Nos. 13 and 14 and submitted that, in fact the award passed in the Reference (IDA) No. 54 of 1993 and was published by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad on 25-03-1997. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, so far enforceability of the said award is concerned, it should be left open for adjudication by the Industrial Court. However, he fairly concedes that, Exhibit-B at Page Nos. 13 and 14 was not placed before the Industrial Court. 5. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the 3 wp2806.11 respective parties and perusing the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court, and in particular Para-13 of the said judgment, it appears that the Industrial Court proceeded to adjudicate the complaint on footing that award passed in the Reference (IDA) No. 54 of 1993 is not at all published. Said award is already published, as contended by learned Counsel, relying on Exhibit-B ( Page Nos. 13 and 14) of the compilation of this writ petition. 6. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, said ground alone is sufficient to quash and set aside the order passed by the Industrial Court impugned in this petition. It is true that, Exhibit-B of the compilation of this petition was not placed before the Industrial Court, Latur. However, the fact remains that award is published as back as in 1997. 7. In that view of the matter, writ petition succeeds. The impugned judgment and award is 4 wp2806.11 quashed and set aside. Complaint (ULP) No. (238/1998) 19/2008 is restored to its original position. It is needless to mention that the said complaint be decided on its own merits and after hearing the parties without being influenced by the fact that the impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside by this Court. It will be open for the parties to adjudicate all grounds available to them. 8. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and same stands disposed of. Rule made absolute on the above terms. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11