(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 2312 of 2009 Shri Mohindersing s/o. Kanyalal Sodhi, Age : 60 years, Occupation : - , R/o. Sahakarnagar, Near Pipeline Road, Savedi, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Shri Dattatraya s/o. Trimbak Bekarase, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Khaerkarjune, Taluka and District : Ahmednagar. 2. Indian Seamless and Metal Tubes Ltd., MIDC, Nagapur, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar, through Managing Director. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. K.N. Lokhande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.D. Sangvikar, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mrs. S.D. Changede, Advocate, holding for Mr. D.V. Changede, Advocate, for respondent no.2. .................. (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th January 2008, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint (ULP) No. 363/1997, thereby allowing the Complaint filed by the respondent no.1 and directing the petitioner to reinstate the complainant, respondent no.1, on his original post and pay him back wages. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as a contractor and that the respondent no.1 was working as Helper with respondent no.2. He, however, submits that the petitioner was not properly joined in the said proceedings and, therefore, he could not represent before the Industrial Court, which has resulted in passing an order ex parte against the present petitioner. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to defend himself before the Industrial Court, I find that it would be in the interest justice, that the matter is remitted back to the Industrial Court for hearing the Complaint afresh. In so far as prejudice that is likely to be caused to the respondent no.1, is concerned, the same can be compensated by imposing costs on the petitioner. (3) 5. Hence, the petition is allowed. (i) The order dated 17th January 2008, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, in Complaint (ULP) No. 363/1997, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, for deciding the Complaint afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondents. (ii) However, the petition is allowed, subject to the payment of costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand] by the petitioner to the respondent no.1. The petitioner shall deposit the costs of Rs. 10,000/- in the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, the respondent no.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the same. (iii) Needless to state, that on failure to deposit the costs by the petitioner within the stipulated time, the petition shall stand automatically dismissed and the impugned order of the Industrial Court shall stand revived. 6. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... (4) bgp/wp2312