(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8359 OF 2009 1. Saraswati w/o. Mahadeo Bhosale, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Khade Galli, Ganesh Nagar, Dhoki, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. 2. Sunita w/o. Kakasaheb Lomate, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Balaji Nagar, Dhoki, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. 3. Laxmibai w/o. Manik Pandole, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Behind Bus Stand, Dhoki, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. 4. Aminabee w/o. Papamiya Shaikh, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Labour, .. Petitioners R/o. Behind Lomte Automobiles, (Original Terna Nagar, Dhoki, complainants) Taluka & District : Osmanabad. versus (2) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Agricultural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Latur, Taluka & District : Latur. 3. The District Superintendent of Agriculture, Administrative Building, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. 4. The Agricultural Officer, District Central Seeds Farm, .. Respondents Dhoki, (Original Taluka & District : Osmanabad. non-applicants) .......................... Mr. H.H. Padalkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. H.S. Bali and Mr. S.H. Bali, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 4. .......................... (3) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7th February 2007, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Latur, below Exhibit U-1 in Complaint (ULP) No. 207/2000, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by one Marathwada Sarvashramik Sanghatana, Latur, for want of prosecution. 2. Mr. H.H. Padalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that though the complaint was filed by the said Sanghatana, after its dismissal, the petitioners have not been informed about the same. He submits that the complaint was for the benefit of the persons whose list is given at page 21 of the petition. It is submitted that the names of the present petitioners are also included in the said complaint. 3. Since the said complaint, which was dismissed, was filed on behalf of said Marathwada Sarvashramik Sanghatana, Latur, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. Needless to state, that if the petitioners have any individual grievance, they can agitate the same by filing proceedings before appropriate forum. (4) 4. The petition disposed of with the aforesaid observations. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8359