HINDUSTAN MOTORS MFG Vs. SADASHIV TUKLARAM SALUNKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith.

(2.) In these petitions, the petitioner-employer has challenged the orders of the learned Industrial Court, Mumbai, rejecting the petitioner's applications for restoration of the original complaints to the file.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that in both these petitions, the Industrial Court, in the absence of any appearance on the part of the petitioner, proceeded to decide the respondents' complaints after taking into account the Written Statement and evidence on record. It is not necessary in this case to go into the validity of the reasons or otherwise given by the petitioner for not appearing before the Court because the learned Industrial Court has rejected both the applications on the ground that its order is not an ex parte order and, therefore, the applications for restoration are not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted on the basis of section 31 of the MRTU & PULP Act that the order is an ex parte order. Section 31 reads as follows:-