1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.327 OF 2009 with CA 1505/2009. (Sushma Pansari Vs. Hargovind Maniyar and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.V.Y.Patil, Advocate for appellant; Mr.AD Shinde, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 1, 2 and 4. ____ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12th January, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The rejection of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act by the learned Judge by order dated 26.11.2008 is assailed. During the course of submissions, Mr. Patil has requested to remand the matter, to adduce the evidence, which the learned Judge has not properly or adequately done. I do not see any impediment in doing such exercise, though it is objected by the counsel for respondent nos. 1,2 and 4. 3) Considering the nature of controversy, when the dispute of employer and employee relations are is at stake, the remand as sought is warranted. The First Appeal is allowed. CA disposed of. The matter is remitted back to the learned 2 Judge to decide the same afresh, allowing the parties to adduce evidence, if they make an application. 4) The parties to appear before the learned Judge on 3rd February, 2010. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa327.09