1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3580 OF 2008 The Sabhapati, Krishin Utpanna Bazar Samiti Yawal and another ...Petitioners Versus Rajesh Chhagan Bhamre (deceased) Through his legal heirs Smt. Rekha Rajesh Bhamre ...Respondent ..... Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioner Ms. D.G.. Arsingkar, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 3RD AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This petition takes exception to the order passed below Exh. C-1 in revision application No. 88 of 2001 by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon dated 11.10.2006 and the judgment and order in Misc. Revision application (ULP) No. 3 of 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon on 12.3.2008 i.e. Application for restoration of revision No. 88 of 2001. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited my 2 attention to the pleading in the petition as well as the application filed for restoration and has submitted that once there was no power to the Industrial Court to reject the proceeding for want of prosecution and the same position is conceded by the learned Industrial Court while entertaining the application for restoration of the original proceeding, merely because application for restoration does not mention provision under which the said application was filed, is not ground to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners for restoration. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in case this court comes to the conclusion to restore the revision application, in that case hearing of the revision may be expedited. 4 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent, I am of the considered view that once it is conceded by the Industrial Court that there was no provision to dismiss the revision in default, consequence would follow. Therefore, Industrial Court was not justified in dismissing the revision in default. 5 From the impugned order dated 12.3.2008, it appears that the said application filed by the petitioners for restoration is rejected merely on the ground that the said application does not mention the provision under which the said application is filed and on perusal of Section 31 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, it appears that there is no 3 power to entertain the such application. 6 On careful perusal of the impugned order dated 12.3.2008 and more particularly para 3 of the said order, the court has taken a note of the fact that there was no power or provision to dismiss the revision in default. 7 In the result, judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon dated 11.10.2006 and the judgment and order in Misc. Revision application (ULP) No. 3 of 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon on 12.3.2008 i.e. Application for restoration of revision No. 88 of 2001, is quashed and set aside. Revision application No. 88 of 2001 is restored to its original position. The parties to appear before the concerned court on 18.8.2009 and the said court shall expedite the hearing of the revision and decide it finally within six months from today. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of. 8 In view of disposal of writ petition, civil application No. 7022 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. *****