1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2007 (Prashant @ Balu Gulshan Gajbhiye Vs The Chief Editor, Lokmat Group of Newspapers and others.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V.P. Marpakwar, Adv. for R- 1 to 4. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 17 th November, 2008 Heard. Perused the impugned order as also the complaint and reply filed thereto by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. According to the petitioner/ complainant, he was an employee of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, but this fact was specifically denied by the respondent no.1 and 2 and it was stated by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, in their reply, that the complainant was working with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as a trainee of one Manav Sewa Trust. According to Manav Sewa Trust, the same was not an industrial establishment, but was a Trust established with an object of giving training to 2 the interested candidates. According to Manav Sewa Trust, the complainant had submitted an application to the Trust for securing training in an establishment. The Trust had referred the complainant to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for training and stipend of Rs. 2,000/- per month was paid by the Trust and not the respondent nos. 1 and 2. After considering the material on record, the Industrial Court, Bhandara, held that the relationship between the complainant and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was “disputed” and the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 to adjudicate the complaint. The complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of absence of jurisdiction to try and decide the same. The Industrial Court, Bhandara, further observed that the complainant was at liberty to approach an appropriate forum for the relief claimed in the complaint. No fault can be found with the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara, on 5th March, 2007, which is impugned in the 3 instant writ petition. There is no error whatsoever, much less, a jurisdictional error in the order dated 5th March, 2007. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP