952-WP-1659-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 952 WRIT PETITION NO. 1659 OF 2019 The Sarpanch Grampanchayat Office Bavachi And Another VERSUS Satish Sheshrao Shinde WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3276 OF 2019 IN WP/1659/2019 The Sarpanch Grampanchayat Office Bavachi And Another VERSUS Satish Sheshrao Shinde ... Mr. N. G. Kale for the Petitioners. Mr. S. P. Urgunde for the Respondent. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 12 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners assail the order dated 22nd September 2017 and order dated 9th April 2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 2015 and Criminal Complaint (ULP) No.18 of 2017 and also the order dated 25th January 2019 passed by the learned Industrial Court below Exhibit C-2 in Revision Application (ULP) No.4 of 2019. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that once the Industrial Court remanded the matter and set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court, the Labour Court does not have the power to restore its own Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:23722 952-WP-1659-2019.doc order which was already set aside by the Industrial Court. Therefore he submits that on this ground the Petition needs to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. 4. Per contra Mr. Urgunde, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that in fact the learned Industrial Court while setting aside the order directed the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as a cost as a pre-condition to contest the Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 2015 and as the Petitioners failed to deposit the said amount, therefore naturally, the complaint cannot be restored. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Industrial Court dated 7th August 2017 whereby as per the clause No.4 the Industrial Court has specifically observed that the revision petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on or before one month from the date of the said order as pre-condition to contest the Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 2015. Admittedly, Petitioners have not deposited the said cost amount and even today also the Petitioners are unable to make a statement before this Court that the amount as order by learned Industrial Court will be deposited. Therefore, I find that as the order was passed subject to deposit of costs and the Petitioners failed to deposit the same, naturally the complaint cannot be restored. Therefore, considering the above I do not find a reason to interfere with the said order. Shubham 952-WP-1659-2019.doc 6. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Civil Application filed therein does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham