:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3297 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2693 OF 2007 Central Provident Fund Commissioner and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Sunil G. Salunke ..Respondent Mrs. S.V. Bharucha for petitioners. Mr. T.R. Yadav for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 20, 2008. Date : February 20, 2008. Date : February 20, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs. Bharucha the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Yadav the learned counsel appears for the respondent. 2. There is no dispute that in Reference (IDA) No. 496/2000, the petitioners did not appear before the Labour Court and consequently an ex parte order came to be passed on 10/2/2003 allowing the said Reference. The said award was published in the :2: Official Gazette on 1/5/2003 and the petitioners did not take any steps to challenge the said award nor did they took any step to apply for restoration of the Reference by setting aside the ex parte award within 30 days of its publication. As the award was not implemented, the respondent-workman approached the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.1 of 2004 and the said complaint has been allowed as per the judgment and order dated 27/1/2005. This petition has been filed before this court for the first time on 7/4/2006 i.e. after about 15 months. 3. Unless the petitioners had challenged the ex parte award passed by the Labour Court and obtained stay on an application for setting aside the same by restoring the reference, there could be no occasion for the Industrial Court to pass any other order and in the absence of any such step taken by the petitioners, the Industrial Court was justified in allowing the complaint and holding that the petitioners are guilty of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. At the same time, :3: the challenge raised to the ex parte award in this petition cannot be considered and the petitioners’ remedy to challenge the same would be by a separate proceeding before the appropriate forum. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected. Interim relief stands vacated. 5. It is clarified that this order will not preclude the petitioners to challenge the ex parte award in appropriate proceedings. 6. Civil Application No. 2693 of 2007 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)