1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.845 OF 2010 Harsha Nitin Vora adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at: New Kapole Nagar ‘D’ Wing, Flat No.9, Aachole Road, Nalasophara(E) District Thane. .. Petitioner -versus 1. Dr. Nigam's Goodhelth Pvt.Ltd 86, Mhada S.V.P. Nagar Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 065. 2. Dr. Vivek Nigam, Managing Director, Dr. Nigam's Goodhelth Pvt.Ltd 86, Mhada S.V.P. Nagar Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 065. 3. The State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader High Court, Mumbai. .. Respondents. Ms. Sharmia V Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip N. Mandvia for respondent Nos l & 2. Mr. P.I. Khamani, AGP for respondent NO.3. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 30th March, 2010 Oral Judgment. 1. The Petitioner-complainant has challenged the impugned 2 order dated 6th October, 2009 whereby the Industrial Court, Mumbai, after hearing both the parties has set aside the order dated 3.1.2009; whereby the respondent's application for setting aside the exparte order and for restoration of the complaint was allowed and the complaint is restored and the Industrial Court has also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the said proceeding before Labour Court, 2. The submission that under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP ACT, 1971, the Revisional Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by Labour Court after assessing the material as well as evidence placed on record as there was no perversity in the order so passed. In the interest of justice the Industrial Court, though has limited jurisdiction and power still empowered to consider the merits of the matter based upon the same material available on record, basically when the impugned order was exparte, yet can interfere with such order. 3. If case is made out and if sufficient material is also placed on record, the Revisional Court has also power and authority to consider and reappreciate the evidence when there is undisputed position on record that the award as passed was exparte. The respondent as well as, the advocate for the management were absent. The basic requirement of giving opportunity to all the parties and the principles of natural justice 3 cannot be overlooked in situation like this. 4. The evidence lead in Misc. application; the advocate has stated that the written statement was filed in the year 2005 and thereafter he could not contacted the party-respondent. Therefore there was no communication from the advocate as he shifted his practice/ stopped to appear in the Labour Courts. The proper communication to the party is a must. The statement is also made that he did not contact and not returned the brief even after 2005. He communicated nothing on the address given in the complaint to the party management. The advocate also stated that he never attended the case as nobody contacted and persuaded the matter. It is only after communication received by the management-office from the complainant’s side, they contacted the advocate. There is obligation also on the party to contact respective advocate and/or at least to be in touch with them. It is also an essential factor, but that itself cannot be the ground to overlook the above undisputed position on record. For want of communication, ultimately the parties suffer and not the advocate. The Labour Court, in my view also failed to take note of this basic factor and therefore, the Industrial Court has rightly reassessed and reconsidered the reasoning given by the learned Labour Court and set aside the order and restored the complaint, by observing further that the applicant/respondent be given an opportunity to contest the 4 matter. A sufficient cause is made out for the restoration. In Raj Kishore Pandey -vs- State of U.P. & ors (AIR 2009 SC 1640), it is held that. “The approach of the court in such matters should be to advance the cause of justice and not the cause of technicalities. A case as far as possible should be decided on merits and the party should not be deprived to get the case examined on the merits”. The revisional power so exercised by re-appreciating the material on record is just, reasonable and correct in the present case. 5. The Industrial Court has also protected the interest of complainant by directing the respondent management to deposit sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to secure the awarded amount as passed. 6. Considering the material on record and the reasoning given by the Industrial Court, I see there is no case to interfere with the same. Resultantly the petition is dismissed. However, the impugned order is modified with regard to the costs. The petitioner herein shall pay to the non applicant costs of Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.500/-. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)