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.4582 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4582 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4582 OF 2008 Chandrakant Laxman Badre ... Petitioner V/s. Babita S. Ghatge ... Respondent Mr.G.M. Savagave for Petitioner Mr.M.S. Topkar for Respondent 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 order challenged by the petitioner has been passed on 28.3.2008 in complaint (ULP) No.89 of 2006. The complaint has been filed by one Shyamrao Ghatge contending that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. While this complaint was pending the complainant expired on 25.12.2007. An application was filed by the present respondent that she is the legally wedded wife of the workman and, therefore, she should be allowed to prosecute the complaint. The Industrial Court has accepted her contention and allowed her to be impleaded as the complainant in place of the deceased Shyamrao Ghatge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits : 2 : that the Industrial Court has permitted the respondent to substitute herself as as a party merely on the basis of an affidavit filed by her in which she contended that she is the legally wedded wife. He submits that there is no documentary evidence on record to indicate that the respondent was in fact married to the workman. He also points out that the workman was married to one Housabai who predeceased him and, therefore, it is impossible that the respondent would be the legally wedded wife of the workman. 3. In my view, merely because the respondent has been permitted to substitute herself as the complainant it would not establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the workman. She will still have to prove before the Court that she is entitled to the claim made in the complaint on the basis that she is the legally wedded wife of Shyamrao Ghatge. Cogent documentary and oral evidence will have to be led to prove her status as the legally wedded wife of the workman. It is only if this status is proved that the Industrial Court will be required to consider whether the claim in the complaint is correct and whether the respondent herein is entitled to the claim as the legally wedded wife of the workman. In this view of the matter, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Industrial Court. : 3 : 4. Petition rejected.