(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 6187 of 2008 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. 2. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. 3. The Block Development Officer, .. Petitioners Panchayat Samiti Sakri, (Original Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule. opponents) versus Annaji s/o. Ramchandra Dixit, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Pensioner, R/o. Plot No. 64-B, Vignaharta Colony, .. Respondent Deopur, Dhule, (Original Taluka & District : Dhule. complainant) .................. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate, for the respondent. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. (2) DATE : 22ND JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17th May 2008, passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Dhule, in Industrial Dispute Act Application No. 8/2004, thereby allowing the dispute filed by the respondent employee and directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 1,03,611/- along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation. 3. Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court has been passed without the petitioners having an opportunity of representing their case. It is submitted that though a Lawyer was duly instructed, he remained absent which resulted in the impugned order being passed without taking into consideration the submissions on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Mr. S.P. Brahme, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the petitioners have been thoroughly negligent and as such, no interference is warranted. 5. On the last date, when the matter was heard, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners was directed to seek instructions from the petitioners, as to whether the petitioners were willing to deposit (3) costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-, in the event, this court was inclined to remand the matter. 6. Accordingly, letter has been received by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, dated 19th June 2009, to the effect that the petitioner is willing to deposit costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. The said letter is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioners did not have opportunity of putting their case before the Labour Court. I find that the a litigant should not be made to suffer on account of lapses on the part of the counsel. In so far as prejudice caused to the respondent employee is concerned, the same can be compensated by imposing costs. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". The matter is remanded to the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Dhule, for deciding it afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. (ii) It is made clear that the petition is allowed on condition that the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand] before the Labour Court, Dhule, within a period of four weeks from today. (iii) On deposit of the said amount, the respondent employee shall be (4) entitled to withdraw the same. (iv) It is needless to state, that on failure to deposit costs of Rs. 25,000/- within the stipulated period, the petition shall stand automatically dismissed and the impugned order of the Labour Court shall stand revived. (iv) Taking into consideration the facts that the respondent is a retired employee and the application is pending since 2004, the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Dhule, is directed to dispose of the Industrial Dispute Act Application No. 8/2004 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp6187