1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 775 OF 2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Executive Engineer, MIDC, Latur. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Rajendra Tulshiram Kamble age 33 years, occ. nil r/o Uti (bk), Tq. Ausa Dist. Latur. .. RRESPONDENT Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 12th APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2 3 Order passed by the revisional court in Revision Application no. 20/2008 decided on 22-7-2009 is subject matter of challenge in this petition at the instance of employer / respondent in complaint ULP no. 36/2001. 4 Complaint was presented by the respondent complaining about the unfair labour practice before the labour Court, Latur. However, the complaint presented by the employee came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. An application was tendered seeking restoration of the complaint and the same was registered as ULP no. 26/2005. There was delay in presenting the application seeking restoration of the complaint. As such, civil application seeking condonation of delay came to be presented at exh. 2. The learned Judge of the labour Court, however, after considering the rival contentions refused to condone delay and rejected the application. Order passed by the learned Judge, labour Court was subjected to challenge before the revisional authority i.e. the industrial Court, Latur in Revision Application no.20/2008. After hearing the contentions of the parties, the industrial Court allowed the revision application and quashed the order passed by the labour Court. While passing final order in the matter, industrial Court has directed restoration of the original complaint bearing no. 36/2001 and further directed the labour 3 court to decide said complaint on its own merit. Order passed by the Industrial Court more specifically directions contained in paragraph no. 3 of the order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 5 It is the contention of the petitioner that the order impugned in the revision application was regarding rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay in presenting the application for restoration, passed by the labour Court and while considering the justifiability in rejecting the application by the labour Court, it was not open for the industrial Court to direct enquiry into the main complaint on its own merit. Application seeking restoration of the complaint is yet to be adjudicated by the labour Court and unless the application presented by employee i.e. ULP no. 26/2005 seeking restoration of the complaint is allowed, it is not open for the labour Court to take up the main complaint for consideration. The industrial Court has also exceeded jurisdiction in direction restoration of the main complaint without there being any prayer made in that behalf. Direction contained in paragraph no. 3 of the operative order passed by the industrial Court appears to be in excess of jurisdiction and the said direction therefore needs to be quashed and set aside. Directions contained in paragraph no. 3 of the order passed on 22-7-2009 in revision application no. 20/2008 by the 4 industrial Court, Latur are therefore quashed and set aside and the labour Court is directed to take up the application seeking restoration of the complaint presented by the employee / respondent herein being Misc. ULP no. 26/2005 for consideration and may pass appropriate orders after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb/wp775.10.odt