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.3842 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3842 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3842 OF 2008 The Principal D.Y. Patil College of Engineering & Technology & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Mangala Shripati Injulkar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.B.V. Bukhari for Petitioners Mr.M.S. Topkar for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition seeks to challenge the order of the Industrial Court dated 31.1.2008 by which certain reliefs have been granted to the respondents. The Industrial Court has held that the petitioners have committed an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It has therefore, directed the petitioners to comply with the provisions of the standard code relating to the respondents and to give them appointment on the basis of the timescale of the pay and to extend them all benefits by paying the arrears on par with the male peons working with the respondents. 2. Mr.Bukhari appearing for the petitioners contends that the Industrial Court while granting relief : 2 : has ignored the fact that the petitioners had not led any evidence in the matter much less to prove that they were regularly appointed workmen. He submits that if the employees are invoking the Standard Code for payment of the wages to the respondents, then the respondents would have to establish first that they were appointed by following the Standard Code. 3. Mr.Topkar appearing for the respondents contends that there is no denial of the averments made in the complaint and, therefore,it was not necessary for the complainants to lead any evidence. He points out that the complaint is filed under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and therefore there is no need for any oral evidence to be led. According to him, the petitioners accepted the fact that the respondents were working for a long number of years as they had set out in their written statement a chart showing the dates of joining of the respondents. He submits that the Industrial Court has not erred in concluding that since the respondents have put in long number of years of service, they were entitled to wages under the Standard Code as regular appointees. 4. Having considered the submissions of both the learned advocates and after perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that the Industrial Court could not : 3 : have passed the impugned order without there being an oral evidence on record. In a case where an employee seeks permanency by invoking Item 6 of Schedule IV, ordinarily the employee must step into the box and indicate how he has been denied the benefits of permanency by continuing him in service for a long period of time as a temporary or casual worker. 5. The respondents have also contended that although male employees who were similarly situated had been paid wages under the Standard Code they had been denied the benefit. However, there is no evidence on record to establish this fact. 6. Therefore, in my opinion, the Industrial Court has erred in allowing the complaint without there being sufficient evidence on record. 7. The order of the Industrial Court is set aside and the complaint is remanded for hearing afresh. The parties may lead additional evidence both oral and documentary, before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court shall dispose of the complaint by 31.5.2009. 8. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms.