1 of 3 986-WP.4342.2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 986 WRIT PETITION NO. 4342 OF 2020 VITTHAL NARAYAN SURYAWANSHI AND ANOTHER VERSUS SATISH KISHAN KHATAWKAR ... Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for the Petitioners. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 12th JUNE, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 16 of 2017, whereby the complaint filed by the Respondent was allowed and the Petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,77,200/-. 3. Mr. Urgunde, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of Elevators Limited and Petitioner No. 2 is its Branch Manager. The Respondent, who worked as a Technician from 07.09.2012 to 07.10.2016, filed the complaint alleging that an amount of Rs.1,77,200/- towards unpaid wages was due and payable by the Petitioners. 4. It was further submitted that the Respondent had failed to 2026:BHC-AUG:23349 2 of 3 986-WP.4342.2020 establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship and, therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable. It was also contended that the Advocate engaged by the Petitioners was subsequently appointed as a Public Prosecutor and, therefore, the matter proceeded without proper participation on behalf of the Petitioners. Consequently, the Respondent was not cross-examined and the complaint came to be allowed. On these grounds, it was urged that the impugned order deserved to be set aside. 5. Though duly served, none appeared for the Respondent. 6. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Respondent had specifically pleaded that the Petitioners had agreed to pay him Rs.18,000/- per month along with an allowance of Rs.800/- per floor for each building. According to the Respondent, he had completed work valued at Rs.4,07,200/-, out of which he had received Rs.2,30,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.1,77,200/-. 7. The Respondent produced his bank statements as well as the relevant records maintained by him in support of his claim. It is noteworthy that, after filing their written statement, the Petitioners chose not to effectively contest the proceedings. It is also not their case that the documents relied upon by the Respondent were fabricated or otherwise unreliable. The statement of accounts and other records 3 of 3 986-WP.4342.2020 produced by the Respondent clearly establish his entitlement to recover the amount of Rs.1,77,200/- from the Petitioners. 8. In view of the documentary evidence available on record, the learned Industrial Court rightly allowed the complaint and directed payment of the outstanding amount. 9. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 16 of 2017 in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef