SARSABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Wadmare learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. P. for R-State. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that she was working as Daily-rated labourer under the respondent No. 4 and her services came to be terminated orally on 4-11-1997. That gave rise to file Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 9/1998, before the Labour Court, Aurangabad on or about 27-1-1998 alongwith an application for interim relief under section 30 (2) of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, without issuing any notice to the other side, allowed the application by his order dated. 28-1-1998 and issued notice returnable on 17-2-1998. By this order the learned Judge of the Labour Court directed the respondents to allow the complainant to report for duty forthwith on the post, on which, she was working previously.

(3.) ON receipt of a copy of the said order dated 28-1-1998, the respondent-Department approached the Industrial Court, Aurangabad under section 44 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. 1971 and filed Revision Application (U. L. P.) No. 19/1998. By his ex parte order dated 9-2-1998, the learned member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad allowed the revision application and disposed of the same by quashing and setting aside the order dated 20-1-1998, passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad on application Exh. U-2. The Industrial Court further directed the Labour Court to decide the application at Exhibit U-2 on 17-2-1998, after hearing both the parties. Mrs. Wadmare learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, she had filed a caveat in the Industrial Court. Though she is not able to give registration number of the caveat application, it was not proper on the part of the learned member of the Industrial Court to pass order dated 9-2-1998, without issuing notice to the present petitioner. The learned Counsel, however is not able to state any reasons as to why she could not approach the Industrial Court on 9-2-1998 or any time thereafter till the date of filing of the present petition, for review of the ex parte order, by pointing out to the learned member of the Industrial Court that the present petitioner had filed a caveat and the order dated 9-2-1998 was passed without issuing notice or without hearing the advocate of the petitioner.