1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7756 OF 2009 1. Shrirang s/o Pandurang Tadas, Age 37 years, Occ. Nil, R/o N-9, 28/1, Shivaji Nagar, Hudco, Aurangabad. 2. Narayan s/o Umaji Mane, Age 35 years,Occ. Nil, R/o At Post Potra, Tal. Kalamnuri, District Hingoli. 3. Devidas s/o Trimbakrao Wankhede Age 39 years, Occ. Nil, R/o N-3, Plot No.165, Bharat Nagar, Hudco, Aurangabad. 4. Sanjay s/o Kaduba Jadhav, Age 35 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Ghodegaon, Tal. Khultabad, District Aurangabad. 5. Narayan Bappasaheb More, Age 36 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Vithalwadi, Post Jamkhed, Tal. Ambad, District Jalna. 6. Anil s/o Hiribhau Karhale, Age 37 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Seegaon, Tal. Soegaon, District Aurangabad. 7. Kishor s/o Shantaram Mahale, Age 34 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Gajanan Nagar, "Rukhmai Niwas" Galli No.02, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad. 8. Sunil s/o Bansidharrao Bendre, Age 32 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Sant Sena Nagar, Parbhani, District Parbhani. 9. Rameshdas s/o Ashokdas Vaishnav, 2 Age 35 years, Occ. Nil, R/o At Ghodgaon, Post Golegaon, Tal. Khultabad, District Aurangabad. 10. Rajiv s/o Vinayakrao Deshmukh, Age 35 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Pimpalgaon (Renuka), Tal. Bhokardan, District Jalna. 11. Sunil s/o Dattatraya Maske, Age 32 years, Occ. Nil, R/o At Post Donger Pimpri, Tal. Patoda, District Beed. 12. Rameshwar s/o Pandurang Makode, age 35 years, Occ. Nil, R/o At Post Antarwali, Tal Ghanshavgi, District Jalna. 13. Prakash s/o Baburao Kandagule, age 35 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Shandrara, Post Chere, Tal. Jalkote, District Latur. 14. Shankar s/o Vasant Narkhede, Age 32 years, Occ. Nil, R/o N-6, M-2, 12/4, Shihagad, Cidco, District Aurangabad 15. Santosh s/o Yadavrao Jadhav, Age 38 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Bhatana, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. 16. Ramesh s/o Kaluba Wankhede, Age 34 years, Occ. Nil, R/o At Post Panwadood (Kd.), Tal.Sillod, District Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Bajaj Auto Limited, Company incorporated as per provisions of Companies Act, having office at MIDC Area, Waluj, Aurangabad (through its Vice President) ... RESPONDENT 3 ..... Shri P.V. Barde, Advocate holding for Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate for the petitioners Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondent waives service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners are unfortunate employees, who failed to prosecute their case diligently and suffered the brunt by the order dated 21.8.2004, by the learned Judge, Industrial Court. The crux of the matter, can be settled, if the order passed below Exh. U-1, in Complaint (ULP) No140/1999 is read completely : “1. Respondent filed a purshis in this group of proceedings below Exh.C-40 kept in complaint ULP No.360/97. A prayer is made to cause the attendance of absenty complainants from amongst the complainants in this case for cross- examination purposes to know the present status. A request is made to dismiss whole of the complaint being jointly filed in case of failure of the said complainants to remain present for cross- examination. 2. Complainant’s learned counsel submitted that, entire complaint may not be dismissed because of default of absenty complainants. Complaint may be simply disposed off against the said complainants alone. 4 3. In view of these submissions and in order to see that the claim of the complainants present may not be defeated on these technicalities, following ORDER 1. The complaint stands disposed of as against complainants 1 to 17, 18 to 68, 69 to 87, 88 to 93, 95 to 104, 106- 109, 110 – 125, alone. This order will form part of final judgment in ULP 360/97.” While canvassing this point, Mr. Ghuge, learned counsel submits on behalf of the respondent/ the industry, that the Advocate was helpless due to the absence of the employees/ petitioners before the said Court and this Court and consequently, instead of facing dismissal, as could be seen, referred in para 2, the counsel urged, the learned Member, Industrial Court to dispose of the complaint and hence, such order came to be passed. Mr. Ghuge submits, the order cannot be branded as an exparte order, since the lawyer was present, but he was helpless as a hapless petitioners did not prosecute the case. 3. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondent are difficult to digest. The spirit of Section 31(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act has to be read in consonance. The nature of the order indicates that the petitioner as complainant did not prosecute the matter in time, complaints are 5 disposed of. It will be amounting to an exparte order, refusing to grant the relief as the petitioners desired. 4. Several other contentions are raised, about the laxity, the approach of the petitioners - employees as the raise from slumber owing to the order of the Apex Court, where majority of the employees of the respondents were showered with the benefit of out of Court settlement and resultantly, the other employees thought identical benefits. These aspects are ground realities, need not be controverted. The news item published in local newspaper gave certainly an alarm of awakening to the petitioners to rush to the Court and know what has happened. 5. Though the grounds of illness are attributed in the petition, however, the petition indicate the absence of employees to contact the Advocate as he subsequently joined judicial service. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains, the following dates will certainly bring the present case in tune with indication with Section 31(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The dates are : 28.1.2004 is the order, 22.8.2004 - Copy application was moved by the petitioner, 31.8.2004 - Certified copy was received 28.9.2004 - The petition seeking restoration was filed. 6 These dates are not controverted by Mr. Ghuge, learned counsel for respondents. The findings of the learned Member of the Industrial Court, while recording reasons, not to entertain the application branding it beyond limitation, indicated in para No.5 in prevailing situation cannot be comprehended. The petition was certainly in limitation. 7. In the light of the fact situation, though several other aspects touching to the merits and the conduct of the petitioner, are canvassed, however, they are not dealt with in the present writ petition. 8. Consequently, the order dated 8.5.2009, dismissing the restoration petition moved by the petitioner herein is set aside. The complaints are restored to original position. The matter is remitted to the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad to decide the complaints of the petitioner on its own merits within time frame as Section 28(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act provide. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. No costs. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE