( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10325 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10651 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10653 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 10325 OF 2010 Santosh Tulshirakm Pakhare, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Subhash Colony, Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Mula Pravara Electric Cooperative Society Ltd., At Post Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur, Through its Managing Director. 2. Mula Pravara Veej Kamgar Sangthana, Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary. .. Respondents. ....................... ( 2 ) WRIT PETITION NO. 10651 OF 2010 Amol Ashok Dawkhar, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Dawkharwadi, Station Road, Rahuri, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Mula Pravara Electric Cooperative Society Ltd., At Post : Shrirampur, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Managing Director. 2. Mula Pravara Veej Kamgar Sangthana, Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary. .. Respondents. ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 10653 OF 2010 Kishor s/o. Annasaheb Pote, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Ukalgaon, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. ( 3 ) versus 1. Mula Pravara Electric Cooperative Society Ltd., At Post : Shrirampur, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Managing Director. 2. Mula Pravara Veej Kamgar Sangthana, Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary. .. Respondents. ............................. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate, for the petitioners in the three petitions. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.1 in the three petitions. ................................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. ( 4 ) 2. As no order prejudicial to the interest of respondent no.2 is being passed, service of notice, upon rule, on respondent no.2 / Union is dispensed with. 3. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 17-8-2010, passed by the lerarned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 29/2006, 112/2005, and 128/2003, thereby dismissing the Complaints filed by the petitioners. 4. Mr. P.V. Barde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that necessary facts showing entitlement of complainants before the Industrial Court to grant of compassionate appointment, are already pleaded and also necessary evidence was adduced. He further states that the relevant documents to show the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased employee are also duly exhibited and the same were filed at Exhibit U-9. According to him, these vital documents are lost sight of, by the Industrial Court while deciding the ULP Complaints. It is the grievance of the petitioners, that impact of the said documents has not been gone into, by the Industrial Court. ( 5 ) 5. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on the other hand, states that the petitioners claim to be legal representatives of ex-employees of respondent no.1 and this aspect has been seriously disputed by employer. According to him, there is no direct relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondent no.1. He has also informed that the authorization in favour of respondent no.1, to manage the establishment expires on 31st January 2011 and thereafter some other institution may take over the management. According to the learned Counsel for respondent no.1, therefore, the grievance of the petitioners made in the petitions, has been rendered infructuous because of passage of time. 6. In view of the statement made by Mr. P.V. Barde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and affidavit pointed out by him, as also reference to documents, it is apparent that the observations of the Industrial Court, that the petitioners have failed to substantiate their grievance, appear to be misconceived. The documents so tendered and the pleadings made are lost sight of, by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has not referred to either pleadings or documents filed before it. The Industrial Court has also not said that the documents so filed are not proved in accordance with law. ( 6 ) 7. The award and the obligation cast upon the respondent no.1 / employer, thereby to provide employment, is not in dispute, at least, at this stage. It is apparent that there is failure on the part of the Industrial Court to exercise jurisdiction available to it, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The common judgment and order dated 17-8-2010, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 29/2006, 112/2005, and 128/2003, is quashed and set aside. These three ULP Complaints are remanded to the learned Member of the Industrial Court for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law, after giving requisite opportunity to the petitioners, as well as, respondent no.1. Liberty to the respondent no.1, to place subsequent events for consideration of the learned Member of the Industrial Court. Needless to mention, that as parties are given liberty to address the Industrial Court afresh, observations made above are only prima facie in nature and shall not influence the Industrial Court while deciding the controversy on merits. ( 7 ) 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10325etc