← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3449/2024dismissed

Sunil Ramdas Warghane v. Shri Bapuraoji Deshmukh Foundation, Wardha Thr. President, Sharad Deshmukh And Others

2025-10-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre2 pages

2025:BHC-NAG:11035 1 82-WP-3449-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3449 OF 2024 Sunil Ramdas Warghane Vs. Shri Bapuraoji Deshmukh Goundation, Wardha Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Bhoyar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J .

DATED : 16 th OCTOBER, 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order in Revision ULP No.74/2022 dated 30.06.2023 was passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur, without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. He also submits that there was some miscommunication by the informant about the date and therefore on that ground, he could not represent his case before the Court properly. Therefore, on that ground, he submits that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Court below.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was absent on that date and now the petitioner cannot state that, no opportunity was given to argue his case on merits and therefore, on his fault, the respondent cannot suffer.

2 82-WP-3449-2024.odt 4.

After hearing both the parties, it is clear that admittedly, the petitioner was not heard while passing the impugned order. Therefore, without going into the merits of case, only on the ground that the petitioner was not heard while passing the order, it is proper to remand back the matter to the Industrial Court, Nagpur to decide the revision afresh by giving an equal opportunity of hearing the petitioner as well as respondent. Industrial Court, Nagpur is directed to decide the proceeding within a period of six months. 5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(S IDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.

) Privel