:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1674 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1674 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1674 OF 2008 Gangaram Siddhaya Argonda & Ors. ..Petitioners versus M/s. Klassiq Art ..Respondent Mr. Shailesh More i/b. Mr. Dinesh Rai for the Petitioners. Mrs. N. R. Patankar with Mr. V. P. Sawant for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. From the impugned order, it is obvious that the Industrial Court has proceeded on the basis that the Labour Court has adjudicated on the legality or otherwise of the closure. That is not so, from the perusal of the finding of the Labour Court in paragraph 18 of its order dated 9.1.2007. It is an erroneous assumption. The Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the Labour Court had no :2: jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is true that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the legality of the closure but the Labour Court has not done so. Hence, findings of the Industrial Court are liable to be set aside. 3. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.2.2008 of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, is hereby set aside. Industrial Court is directed to adjudicate the merits after going into all the questions raised by the parties. The Industrial Court shall decide the matter within a period of four weeks after the parties appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Court on 25.8.2008. 4. Rule answered accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)