Bombay High Court
THE SARPANCH GRAMPANCHAYAT OFFICE BAVACHI AND ANOTHERversusSATISH SHESHRAO SHINDE
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Because the petitioners failed to deposit the Rs 10,000 cost as mandated by the Industrial Court, the complaint could not be restored and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The Sarpanch Grampanchayat Office Bavachi and another filed a writ petition challenging orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court relating to a labour complaint. They argued that once the Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court's order, the Labour Court could not restore it. The respondent contended that the Industrial Court had conditioned any restoration on the petitioners depositing Rs 10,000 as costs, which they failed to do. The High Court examined the Industrial Court’s order, noting the explicit cost condition and the petitioners' non‑compliance. Concluding that the condition was precedent to restoration, the Court held that the complaint could not be revived and dismissed the writ petition, also disposing of the related civil application.
Issues considered
- Whether the Labour Court can restore its order after it has been set aside by the Industrial Court
- Whether failure to deposit costs as directed by the Industrial Court bars restoration of the labour complaint
Subjects
- labour law
- industrial court
- cost deposit
- writ petition
- restoration of order
- jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23722
952-WP-1659-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
952 WRIT PETITION NO. 1659 OF 2019
The Sarpanch Grampanchayat Office Bavachi And Another
VERSUS
Satish Sheshrao Shinde
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3276 OF 2019
IN WP/1659/2019
The Sarpanch Grampanchayat Office Bavachi And Another
VERSUS
Satish Sheshrao Shinde
...
Mr. N. G. Kale for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. P. Urgunde for the Respondent.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 12 JUNE 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The Petitioners assail the order dated 22 nd September 2017 and order
dated 9th April 2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Latur in Complaint
(ULP) No.96 of 2015 and Criminal Complaint (ULP) No.18 of 2017 and also
the order dated 25th January 2019 passed by the learned Industrial Court
below Exhibit C-2 in Revision Application (ULP) No.4 of 2019.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that once the Industrial
Court remanded the matter and set aside the order passed by the learned
Labour Court, the Labour Court does not have the power to restore its own
Shubham Page 1 of 3
952-WP-1659-2019.doc
order which was already set aside by the Industrial Court. Therefore he
submits that on this ground the Petition needs to be allowed by setting aside
the impugned orders.
4. Per contra Mr. Urgunde, learned counsel for the Respondent submits
that in fact the learned Industrial Court while setting aside the order
directed the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the
complainant as a cost as a pre-condition to contest the Complaint (ULP)
No.96 of 2015 and as the Petitioners failed to deposit the said amount,
therefore naturally, the complaint cannot be restored.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. I have gone
through the order passed by the learned Industrial Court dated 7 th August
2017 whereby as per the clause No.4 the Industrial Court has specifically
observed that the revision petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-
to the complainant on or before one month from the date of the said order
as pre-condition to contest the Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 2015. Admittedly,
Petitioners have not deposited the said cost amount and even today also the
Petitioners are unable to make a statement before this Court that the
amount as order by learned Industrial Court will be deposited. Therefore, I
find that as the order was passed subject to deposit of costs and the
Petitioners failed to deposit the same, naturally the complaint cannot be
restored. Therefore, considering the above I do not find a reason to interfere
with the said order.
Shubham Page 2 of 3
952-WP-1659-2019.doc
6. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Civil Application filed
therein does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…