Bombay High Court
SHESHRAO RAMRAO MIRGEversusMS SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT THRO ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MANAGER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court found no perversity in the Industrial Court's dismissal and upheld the order, while permitting fresh proceedings if the petitioner later produces the agreement.
Summary
The petitioner, Sheshrao Ramrao Mirge, filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order dated 06‑11‑2019 that dismissed his 2015 complaint on the ground that a separate factory‑level agreement existed. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not produced the alleged agreement despite multiple extensions of time. The Court observed that the Industrial Court's decision was not perverse and that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement to place the agreement on record. Consequently, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the petition but allowed the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings if he later produces the agreement. All issues were kept open and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint on the basis of a purported separate agreement that was not produced on record.
Subjects
- Industrial Court
- Writ Petition
- Dismissal
- Agreement
- Procedural Delay
- Jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:585
1 964 WP 2975-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
964 WRIT PETITION NO. 2975 OF 2020
SHESHRAO RAMRAO MIRGE
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.222 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
2 964 WP 2975-2020.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.222 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/
Checking your session…