1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 2009 The Bombay School Sports Association & Anr. ..Petitioners. V/s. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh. ..Respondent. Mr.J.S.Kini i/b. Mr.Suresh Dubey for petitioners. Mr.G.S.Baj for Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 15, 2009. : APRIL 15, 2009. : APRIL 15, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Baj waives notice for Respondent. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 4. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Member, Industrial Court dated 31st March, 2008 in Complaint(ULP) No.112 of 2006. From the tenor of the impugned decision, it is obvious that the matter proceeded exparte against the Petitioners. That can be discerned from the 2 cause title as well as the opinion recorded in paragraph-5 of the impugned Judgment. 5. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in this peculiar facts of the present case, the impugned decision be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Industrial Court for reconsideration fresh on its own merit in accordance with the law by giving opportunity to the Petitioners to contest the claim of the Respondent/Complainant. Counsel for the Respondent/complainant however, submits that the Petitioner has already extended benefit to the Respondent in part and remaining benefits are likely to be extended in future shortly. According to the Respondent, therefore, the benefits already extended by the Petitioners to the Respondent employees shall not be affected by virtue of the remand order as a consequence to setting aside the impugned decision. Counsel for the Petitioners on instruction states that to the extent, the Respondent employees have already received any benefit, those benefits will remain unaffected inspite of setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for reexamination before the Industrial Court. 6. Accordingly, on this understanding, the Petition succeeds. The impugned decision is set 3 aside and the complaint is restored to file to its original number to be proceeded afresh after giving opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the claim of the Respondent. All question in the said complaint are left open to be decided on its own merit in accordance with the law. 7. The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court on 8th June, 2009, on which date the Industrial Court may proceed with the hearing of the restored complaint, to be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably by end of December, 2009. 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)