Sandeep S/O Rustam Bhikji Sirsat vs The Sub Area Manager, Padmapur ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3447 Bom

                                             1                                            wp5029.14




                                                                                       
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                               
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.5029 OF 2014




                                                              
     1) Sandeep s/o Rustam Bhikji Sirsat,
         Aged about 35 years, Occupation - Nil, 
         R/o WCL Colony, DRM-93, Shakti 




                                                
         Nagar, Durgapur, Chandrapur (M.S.).
                             
     2) The Jt. General Secretary,
         Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress
         Vijay Bhawan, Vitthal Mandir Ward,
                            
         District - Chandrapur (M.S.)                                   ....       PETITIONERS


                         VERSUS
      
   



     The Sub-Area Manager,
     Padmapur Open Caste Mines of Chandrapur
     Area of WCL, Chandrapur.                                           ....       RESPONDENT





     ______________________________________________________________
                  Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate for the petitioners, 
                Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent.
      ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 28 th JUNE, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri

A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent.

2 wp5029.14

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner No.1-workman and petitioner No.2-Union

have challenged the award passed by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal holding that there is no dispute between the parties

and the workman is not entitled for any reliefs. The reference is

disposed by the Tribunal recording that the Union has not filed

statement of claim and the Union was not represented when the

proceedings were taken up by the Tribunal.

4. It is the claim of the petitioners that the notices sent by the

Tribunal to the representative of Union informing about the date on

which the matter was fixed, was not received by the representative of

the Union, and that there is nothing on the record to show that the

notice was served on the representative of the Union.

5. Be that as it may, the facts on record show that the Union

had been prosecuting the matter agitating the grievance of the

workman. It is not the case of the respondent that the workman has

benefited by remaining absent or by prolonging the adjudication of the

proceedings.

3 wp5029.14

6. Considering the facts on record, in my view, the interests

of justice would be sub-served by passing the following order :

                       (i)     The impugned award is set aside. 

                       (ii)    The   proceedings   are   restored   on   the   file   of   Central




                                                     
                               Government Industrial Tribunal. 

                       (iii)
                                    

The Tribunal shall decide the proceedings on merits

according to law.

(iv) The petitioners and the respondent shall appear before the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur on

26-08-2016 and abide by further orders in the matter.

(v) The petition is disposed in the above terms. The parties to

bear their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar