1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3393 OF 2009 Ramrao s/o Shankarrao Pathrikar ...Petitioner Versus The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.S. Jalna ...Respondents ..... Mr. S. S. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.D. Wange, advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 29TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for respondent waives service. 2 The principal grievance raised in this petition is that the complaint filed by the petitioner herein before the Industrial Court, Jalna has been dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, there was delay in filing the complaint and secondly no particulars in respect of the amount, to which the petitioner is entitled for and under which Rules 2 he is entitled for the claim, are not mentioned in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the matter is remitted back to the Industrial Court, Jalna for fresh consideration, the petitioner would be in a position to substantiate his claim with better particulars and therefore, he prays that the impugned judgment and order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted since the petitioner failed to give better particulars in support of his claim for a considerable long time, this Court may not interfere in impugned order. 4 I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the court has dismissed the complaint on two grounds. The first is that the complaint is filed after three years from the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner is retired in the year 2004 and the complaint came to be filed in the year 2007. So far as this ground is concerned, I am of the view that in filing the complaint belatedly, the petitioner has not at all been benefited by any means. That apart, there are no malafide intentions on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceeding. The claim which was agitated by the petitioner in the complaint is a continuous cause of action and it cannot be said that 3 there was delay in filing the compliant. Therefore, the findings recorded by the court below on point No.4 is required to be interfered. 5 The second point, on which the complaint came to be dismissed is that better particulars are not given by the petitioner with the complaint in support of his claim. Counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a statement that the petitioner will file affidavit giving better particulars to substantiate his claim. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, if the petitioner is entitled for the claim which he has prayed in the complaint, merely because the complaint does not give better particulars, is not a ground to deny the said claim. In fact the Industrial Court should have asked the complainant-petitioner to file further affidavit stating therein better particulars about his claim. 7 In the result, the impugned order dated 2.2.2009, passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalna in complaint (ULP) No. 86 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Member, Industrial Court, Jalna. The complaint (ULP) No. 86 of 2007 is restored to its original file. It will be open for the petitioner to file further affidavit stating therein the details about his claim before the Industrial Court, Jalna. The Industrial Court shall hear the parties afresh by permitting them to lead further evidence by placing additional documents on 4 record, if any. The Industrial Court shall decide the claim on its own merits in accordance with law expeditiously and not later than six month from the date of receipt of this order. 8 Rule made absolute in the above terms. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/