1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1731/1996 Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre VRCE Campus, Nagpur ..vs.. Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Nagpur and 5 others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. V. MORE, J. DATED :- 28 th January, 2008. 1. Heard Mrs. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Patel, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3. None appears for the other respondents, though served. 2. Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 filed Complaint ULP No. 356/1995 under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 against the petitioners in the Industrial Court, Nagpur for regularisation in the petitioner's employment. 3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on various grounds including the ground that the petitioner is not an “Industry” and respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are not “Workmen” within the 2 meaning of Section 2 (j) and 2(s) respectively of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The Industrial Court recorded affirmative finding on the issue whether the petitioner is an “Industry” and whether the complainants/respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are the “Workmen”. So far as claim of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 for regularisation is concerned, the Industrial Court concluded that the petitioner has not committed any unfair labour practice under Item 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act in not regularising services of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. 5. Mrs. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner makes statement that respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have not challenged the above said order of the Industrial Court by filing the petition. The petitioner, however, being partly aggrieved by the finding of the Industrial Court namely the petitioner is an “Indsutry” and respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are “Workmen” within the meaning of Section 2 (j) and (s) respectively of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed the present writ petition. 6. In view of above, Mrs. Patil, learned counsel for the 3 petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to challenge the finding of the Industrial Court recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner is an “Industry” and respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are the “Workmen” in appropriate proceeding, if occasion arises. 7. Since, respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have not challenged the order of the Industrial Court refusing regularisation of their services, I deem it appropriate to grant leave to Mrs. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, to withdraw the petition with liberty as prayed for. The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 8. It is made expressly clear that I have not gone into the merits of the petition and the finding recorded in the impugned order regarding petitioner as an “Industry” will not come in the petitioner's way in any other complaints. JUDGE kahale