Bombay High Court

BALKRISHNA YESHWANTRAO BANSODversusMS SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT THRO ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MANAGER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The High Court held that there was no perversity in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Balkrishna Yeshwantrao Bansod, filed a complaint (ULP No. 218 of 2015) before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, alleging a grievance against MS Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that a separate agreement existed at the factory level, but the petitioner failed to produce that agreement. The petitioner then filed a writ petition (963 WR) in the Bombay High Court in 2020 challenging the dismissal. The High Court observed that despite being granted time, the petitioner never placed the alleged agreement on record and therefore found no perversity in the Industrial Court's order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner may initiate fresh proceedings before the Industrial Court if he later discovers the agreement. All issues were kept open for any future filing.

Issues considered

Whether the Industrial Court's order dismissing the complaint on the basis of a separate factory‑level agreement is perverse or illegal.
Whether the High Court can set aside the Industrial Court's order in the absence of the alleged agreement.
Whether the petitioner may be directed to initiate fresh proceedings before the Industrial Court if the agreement is later produced.

Subjects

Industrial dispute
Unfair labour practice
Writ petition
Industrial Court order
Separate agreement
Fresh proceedings

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:590
1 963 WP 2974-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

963 WRIT PETITION NO. 2974 OF 2020

BALKRISHNA YESHWANTRAO BANSOD
VERSUS
MS SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT THRO
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MANAGER

…
Mr. Sanket S. Joshi h/f. Mr. Ashok A. More – Advocate for Petitioner
…

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026

PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner assails the order

dated 06.11.2019 passed below Exhibit O-3 by the learned Industrial

Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No.218 of 2015, whereby the

complaint filed by the petitioner 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

petitioner has 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 petitioner seeks time to place the said agreement

on record. Admittedly, despite the complaint having been filed in the year
2 963 WP 2974-2020.odt

2015 and the same came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court on

06.11.2019, and the present petition being pending since 2020, the

petitioner has failed to place any such agreement before this Court.

4. In view thereof, I do not find any perversity in the order dated

06.11.2019 passed below Exhibit O-3 by the learned Industrial Court,

Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No.218 of 2015.

5. However, it is made clear that, in case the petitioner subsequently

finds any separate agreement, he 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/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…