Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

BHANUDAS SHAMRAO HIWARALEversusM/S SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT MANIKNAGAR THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court held that the Industrial Court did not act perversely in dismissing the complaint and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhanudas Shamrao Hiwarale, filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order dismissing his 2015 complaint on the ground that a separate factory‑level agreement, which he failed to produce, was required for locus standi. The High Court examined whether the Industrial Court erred in its dismissal and found no perversity in the lower court's decision, noting the petitioner had not placed the alleged agreement on record. The Court clarified that if the petitioner later discovers such an agreement, he may initiate fresh proceedings before the Industrial Court, which must then decide the matter within six months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with all issues kept open for any future filing. The decision underscores the necessity of presenting requisite agreements to establish standing in industrial disputes.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of a separate factory‑level agreement
  • Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the complaint in the absence of the agreement

Subjects

  • Industrial Court
  • Separate agreement
  • Locus standi
  • Writ petition
  • Industrial dispute
  • Fresh proceedings

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:13540
                                                                             60-4.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          60 WRIT PETITION NO. 2999 OF 2020

                                 Bhanudas Shamrao Hiwarale
                                           VERSUS
                               M/s. Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar

                                           …..
          Mr. More Ashok A., Advocate for the Petitioner
                                           …..

                                        CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE       : 24.03.2026


          PER COURT :

          1.    Heard learned counsel for petitioner.


          2.    By way of present petition, petitioner assails the order
          04.09.2019, passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint
          (ULP) No.126 of 2015, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner
          came to be dismissed.

          3.    Industrial Court has rejected the complaint on the ground that
          there was a separate agreement at the factory level and petitioner has
          not placed the said agreement on record. In absence of separate
          agreement at the factory level, the complainant has no locus to file the
          complaint.


          4.    Admittedly, despite the complaint having been filed in the year
          2015 and dismissed on 04.09.2019 and present petition being pending
          since 2020, the petitioner has failed to place any such agreement
          before this Court.

                                               1
                                                                      60-4.odt


5.      In view thereof, I do not find any perversity in the order passed
by the learned Industrial Court.


6.      However, it is made clear that, in case the petitioner
subsequently finds any separate agreement, he shall be at liberty to file
fresh proceedings before the Industrial Court. If the petitioner files the
complaint afresh before the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court to
decide the same within a period of six months.


7.      The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. All issues are kept
open.



                                      [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]




Sameer/March-2026




                                      2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.