Bombay High Court
TEJRAO SAKHARAM MIRGEversusM/S. SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court held that the Industrial Court's order was not perverse and therefore upheld the dismissal of the complaint.
Summary
The petitioner, Tejrao Sakharam Mirge, filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order dated 03‑04‑2019 that dismissed his 2015 unfair labour practice complaint on the ground that a separate factory‑level agreement existed. The petitioner failed to produce the alleged agreement despite multiple requests for time. The High Court found no perversity in the Industrial Court's decision and therefore did not set aside the order. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner may initiate fresh proceedings before the Industrial Court if he later produces the agreement. All issues were kept open and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Industrial Court's dismissal of the unfair labour practice complaint on the basis of a purported separate agreement, without the agreement being placed on record, is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Subjects
- Industrial Court
- unfair labour practice
- separate agreement
- writ petition
- procedural default
- industrial dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:587
1 983 WP 6531-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
983 WRIT PETITION NO. 6531 OF 2020
TEJRAO SAKHARAM MIRGE
VERSUS
M/S. SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA MARYADIT
…
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 03.04.2019 passed below Exhibit O-2 by the learned Industrial
Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No.361 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
2015 and having been dismissed by the Industrial Court on 03.04.2019,
2 983 WP 6531-2020.odt
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
03.04.2019 passed below Exhibit O-2 by the learned Industrial Court,
Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No.361 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…