VITTHAL NARAYAN SURYAWANSHI AND ANOTHERversusSATISH KISHAN KHATAWKAR

2026:BHC-AUG:23349
                                               1 of 3                     986-WP.4342.2020



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               986 WRIT PETITION NO. 4342 OF 2020

                        VITTHAL NARAYAN SURYAWANSHI AND ANOTHER
                                             VERSUS
                                   SATISH KISHAN KHATAWKAR
                                                 ...
               Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                                                 ...

                                        CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE    :       12th JUNE, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners.

               2.        By the present petition, the Petitioners have challenged the

               order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Member, Industrial

               Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 16 of 2017, whereby the

               complaint filed by the Respondent was allowed and the Petitioners

               were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,77,200/-.


               3.        Mr. Urgunde, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted

               that Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of Elevators Limited and Petitioner

               No. 2 is its Branch Manager. The Respondent, who worked as a

               Technician from 07.09.2012 to 07.10.2016, filed the complaint alleging

               that an amount of Rs.1,77,200/- towards unpaid wages was due and

               payable by the Petitioners.


               4.        It was further submitted that the Respondent had failed to
                                  2 of 3                 986-WP.4342.2020



establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship and,

therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable. It was also

contended that the Advocate engaged by the Petitioners was

subsequently appointed as a Public Prosecutor and, therefore, the

matter proceeded without proper participation on behalf of the

Petitioners. Consequently, the Respondent was not cross-examined and

the complaint came to be allowed. On these grounds, it was urged that

the impugned order deserved to be set aside.


5.        Though duly served, none appeared for the Respondent.


6.        Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and on

perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Respondent had

specifically pleaded that the Petitioners had agreed to pay him

Rs.18,000/- per month along with an allowance of Rs.800/- per floor

for each building. According to the Respondent, he had completed

work valued at Rs.4,07,200/-, out of which he had received

Rs.2,30,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.1,77,200/-.


7.        The Respondent produced his bank statements as well as the

relevant records maintained by him in support of his claim. It is

noteworthy that, after filing their written statement, the Petitioners

chose not to effectively contest the proceedings. It is also not their case

that the documents relied upon by the Respondent were fabricated or

otherwise unreliable. The statement of accounts and other records
                                          3 of 3                986-WP.4342.2020



          produced by the Respondent clearly establish his entitlement to recover

          the amount of Rs.1,77,200/- from the Petitioners.


          8.        In view of the documentary evidence available on record, the

          learned Industrial Court rightly allowed the complaint and directed

          payment of the outstanding amount.


          9.        Considering the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out

          for interference with the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned

          Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 16 of 2017 in

          exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

          Constitution of India.


          10.       Hence, the present petition is devoid of merit and same is

          hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                            (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef