WP/1486/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1486 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra through the Superintending Engineer PWD Bandhkam Bhavan, Satara & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Shri Mahesh Gajanan Babar ... Respondent Mr.P.G. Sawant, AGP – B panel, for Petitioners None for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 20, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the State has challenged the order passed on 1.12.2009 by the Industrial Court, Satara in Revision Application (ULP) No.27 of 2009. By this order, the revision application filed by the Respondent was allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the petitioners to file their written statement on payment of costs has been set aside. 2. The complainant i.e. the respondent herein, filed complaint (ULP) No.36 of 2008 before the Labour Court in January 2008. Summons was served on the petitioners in August 2008. The Petitioners appeared through their advocate. On 2.9.2009, the advocate for the petitioners applied for an adjournment before the Labour Court for filing a reply to the complaint. Several adjournments were granted by the Labour Court to accommodate the petitioners so that the written statement could be filed. The Labour Court ultimately passed the order “no written statement” WP/1486/2010 : 2 : and directed further that the matter would proceed ex-parte. On 16.3.2009, the Petitioners' advocate filed an application at exhibit 16 for permission to file the written statement. It appears that the Labour Court then sought a reply to the application from the Respondent. 3. A reply was filed by the Respondent through his advocate opposing the application at exhibit 16. It was contended that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation and was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was contended that since the written statement was required to be filed within 90 days, the Labour Court had rightly passed the order of “no written statement and matter to proceed ex-parte”. It was further contended that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were applicable as the Labour Court had all the trappings of a Court. It was further contended that though notices were issued to the Petitioners on 14.8.2008 informing them that the date for filing the written statement was 1.9.2008, the petitioners had failed to act accordingly. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 12.11.2008 when the advocate for the Petitioners sought time to file the written statement as the necessary documents were not available for him to prepare the same. On 8.12.2008, nobody appeared for the petitioners and the Labour Court therefore passed the order that the matter would proceed ex-parte and without a written statement. Evidence of the respondent was recorded on 12.1.2009, in the absence of the Petitioners and their advocate. The matter was then adjourned to 9.2.2009 for cross-examining the Respondent. It appears that the matter was then adjourned to 16.3.2009 as the advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted before the Court that it was difficult to cross-examine the Respondent without the Petitioners' written statement being on record. Accordingly, on 16.3.2009, an WP/1486/2010 : 3 : application was filed requesting the Court to set aside the order of no written statement. Evidence of the workman's second witness was also recorded. Several other contentions were raised by the Respondent in reply. In short, the Respondent vehemently opposed the application for taking on record the written statement of the Petitioners. 4. The Labour Court considering the contentions of both parties observed that the reasons mentioned in the application at exhibit 16 for setting aside the order for no written statement was genuine and that the delay in filing such an application was required to be condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs.250/-. Accordingly, the Petitioners paid costs of Rs.250/- and sought to file the written statement. Being aggrieved by the order, the respondent preferred revision application (ULP) No.27 of 2009 u/s 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court allowed the application and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the present petition. 5. The respondent, though served, has not appeared before this Court. He has instead filed written notes of arguments on 5.7.2010. I have perused a copy of these arguments submitted by the Respondent. I have heard the learned AGP on behalf of the Petitioners. 6. In my view, the order of the Industrial Court is erroneous and is required to be set side. A discretionary order had been passed by the Labour Court of taking on record the written statement on payment of certain costs. It appears that the Industrial Court has set aside the order on the ground that two contrary orders had been passed by the Labour Court. Exhibit 12 was an application filed by the WP/1486/2010 : 4 : petitioners to recall the order of no written statement. That application had been rejected by the Court as it was not accompanied by an affidavit. An application was immediately filed at exhibit 16 alongwith an affidavit. The Industrial Court observed that the Labour Court had erred in allowing exhibit 16 when exhibit 12 seeking the same relief had already been dismissed. 7. I have perused a copy of the order of the Labour Court passed on 4.5.2009 allowing exhibit 16 on condition of payment of costs of Rs.250/-. In my opinion, the Labour Court has recorded cogent reasons for allowing the application subject to payment of costs. The Labour Court while granting exhibit 16 has dismissed exhibit 18 which was an application filed by the Respondent for dismissal of the application at exhibit 16. It appears that Respondent had filed the application instead of filing a regular reply. The Industrial Court has erred in concluding that the Labour Court had passed contrary orders on the same relief sought by the petitioners. The earlier application at exhibit 12 was rejected only because it was not supported by an affidavit. It had not been rejected on merits. The Labour Court then granted the application which was supported by an affidavit by recording cogent reasons. 8. In my opinion, the order of the Industrial Court must be set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances in the matter and the delay caused by the Petitioners in filing the written statement, costs awarded by the Labour Court was too paltry an amount. 9. The petition is allowed. The order of the Industrial Court is set aside. The application of the Petitioners to file the written statement is allowed subject to WP/1486/2010 : 5 : payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent within four weeks from today. The written statement shall be taken on record by the Labour Court only after costs of Rs.2,000/- are paid to the Respondent. The complaint to proceed as expeditiously as possible thereafter. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly.