1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2842 OF 2009 Sunil Dattatraya Khadke, Age-47 years, Occu:Service, R/o-69, Vitthal Peth, Nashirabad Road, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Maniram Hiralal Dabore, Age-Major, Occu:Service, R/o-Shanipeth, Gurunanak Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon, 2) Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, (Through its Commissioner) Administrative Building, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon, 3) Chandrakant Laxman Pandhare, Age-Major, Occu:Service, R/o-278, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.S.R. Patil Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.S.P. Tiwari Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.R. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.G.V. Wani Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... 2 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 14TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the Judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2009 in Complaint (ULP) No.33 of 2006 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon. By the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2009 the Industrial Court, Jalgaon set aside the order passed by Respondent No.2. By order dated 22nd September, 2006 the Respondent No.2 promoted the Petitioner as Librarian in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000. It is the case of the Petitioner that without giving any opportunity of hearing, the Industrial Court set aside his promotion order dated 22nd September, 2006. 3 3. It is admitted fact that Respondent No.1 filed Complaint (ULP) No.33 of 2006 on 28th September, 2006 before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon challenging the promotion order dated 26th September, 2006 of Petitioner's without making him as a party in the said proceeding. After hearing the parties, the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties agreed, to set aside the impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No.33 of 2006 on following terms and conditions: (i) The Respondent No.1 - original complainant in Complaint (ULP) No.33 of 2006 will make a party to the Petitioner in the original Complaint before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon. (ii) After adding the Petitioner as a party Respondent in Complaint (ULP) No. 33 of 2006, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon will decide the Complaint after hearing the parties within nine (9) months from the 4 communication of the present order. (iii) All the parties are at liberty to produce fresh oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon in order to decide the issue in question. 4. It is the well established principle of administration of Justice that no one shall be vexed without giving him the opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner was not a party to the Complaint (ULP) No.33 of 2006. The order dated 22nd September, 2006 whereby the Petitioner was promoted as librarian in the pay- scale of Rs.5000-8000 could not be set aside in his absence without giving him opportunity to be heard. Hence the order passed in the Complaint (ULP) No.33 of 2006, by the Industrial Court at the back of the Petitioner without giving him opportunity of being heard is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. In view of the above mentioned facts and the law, Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. Writ 5 Petition is partly allowed, accordingly. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/wp2842.09