Bombay High Court
KISAN KACHRU TUPE DEAD THROUGH LRSversusSIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MANGER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court found no perversity in the Industrial Court's dismissal and upheld the order.
Summary
The petitioners, Kisan Kachru Tupe (deceased) and others, filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order dated 03‑09‑2019 that dismissed their 2015 complaint (ULP No.141) on the ground of a purported separate factory‑level agreement. The petitioners failed to produce the alleged agreement before the High Court despite multiple requests for time. The Court examined whether the Industrial Court's dismissal was perverse or erroneous. Finding no perversity and noting the petitioners' inability to produce the agreement, the Court upheld the Industrial Court's order. It directed that the petitioners may initiate fresh proceedings before the Industrial Court if they later locate the agreement, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the petitioners' complaint on the basis of a separate agreement that was not placed on record.
- Whether the High Court should set aside the Industrial Court's order in the absence of the alleged agreement.
Subjects
- writ petition
- industrial court
- complaint dismissal
- separate agreement
- procedural delay
- fresh proceedings
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:591
1 962 WP 2973-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
962 WRIT PETITION NO. 2973 OF 2020
KISAN KACHRU TUPE DEAD THROUGH L.RS. NANUBAI KISAN TUPE
AND OTHERS
VERSUS
SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT THROUGH
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MANGER
…
Mr. Sanket S. Joshi h/f. Mr. Ashok A. More – Advocate for Petitioners
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners are assailing the
order dated 03.09.2019 passed below Exhibit O-3 by the learned
Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No.141 of 2015,
whereby the complaint filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed.
3. The learned Industrial Court rejected the complaint on the ground
that there was a separate agreement at the factory level, however the
petitioners have not placed the said agreement on record before this
Court. Though on an earlier occasion time was sought, and even today
the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks time to place the said
agreement on record. Admittedly, despite the complaint having been filed
2 962 WP 2973-2020.odt
in the year 2015 and having been dismissed by the Industrial Court on
03.09.2019, and the present petition being pending since 2020, the
petitioners have failed to place any such agreement before this Court.
4. In view thereof, I do not find any perversity in the order dated
03.09.2019 passed below Exhibit O-3 by the learned Industrial Court,
Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No.141 of 2015.
5. However, it is made clear that, in case the petitioners subsequently
finds any separate agreement, they shall be at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings before the Industrial Court.
6. All issues are kept open.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale/
Checking your session…