33. WP 5068 of 2024.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5068/2024 Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Akola and others ...Versus… Janardhan S/o Shriramji Surjuse - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for petitioners Mr. A.S. Dhage, Advocate h/f Mr. V.B. Bhise, Advocate for respondent CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 20/08/2025 1. The petitioner/Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation approached this Court raising challenge to the order rendered by the Industrial Court allowing the complaint presented by the employee/respondent under Section 28 r/w Item 7 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter “MRTU and PULP Act”). 2. The respondent i.e. complainant was appointed as a Junior Clerk by following the due process of law in the year 1985 continued service of the petitioner on regular establishment and eventually retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2016. However, an enquiry was initiated in the year 2015 in relation to awarding compensation towards non-germination of Soyabean seeds owing to some discrepancies while issuing the account payee cheques to the farmers. In that process a preliminary enquiry 2025:BHC-NAG:8767 33. WP 5068 of 2024.odt 2 was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and eventually charge- sheet was issued under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 vide memorandum dated 10/03/2016 by which the order of suspension was served along with memorandum of charges. 3. During pendency of the said enquiry on account of attaining the age of superannuation, the complainant was relieved from service w.e.f. 30/06/2016. Since, the enquiry could not be concluded, continuing the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement, according to the complainant was improper and contrary to the provisions of law. As such, complaint under Section 28 r/w Item 7 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 came to be presented. 4. In response to the summons, the Corporation although caused its appearance, however, failed to appear in the matter and file written statement has resulted into allowing the complaint ex parte. The said aspect is recorded by the Industrial Court in its order. Resultantly, the complaint which proceeded ex parte in absence of written statement came to be allowed in the year 2024. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation presented this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the Corporation although was served with notice, however, because of administrative and technical reason could not appear and resultantly failed to file its say in the said complaint before the Industrial Court. 33. WP 5068 of 2024.odt 3 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Corporation has consciously chosen not to appear before the Industrial Court vis-a-vis to file written statement, as such, no error could be noted in the order of the Industrial Court. It is further submitted that an employee who is now of 65 years of age cannot be subjected to the proceedings before the Industrial Court for serious lapses on the part of the petitioner after four years. As such, prayed for dismissal of the petition endorsing the order of the Industrial Court. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, it is a matter of record that the enquiry was initiated before the complainant attained the age of superannuation. It is a settled position that the continuation of the departmental enquiry and the proceedings even after superannuation can be permitted to be continued and concluded once those are initiated. Thus, admittedly the petitioner has failed to appear before the Industrial Court despite being duly served and resultantly the complaint has proceeded ex parte. However, in order to achieve the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to compensate the complainant by directing the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to which the counsel for petitioner has fairly agreed. The complainant can be adequately compensated by awarding the said cost and the fact that the complaint has proceeded ex parte deserves to be adjudicated by extending an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its say and decision of complaint on merit. Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the order rendered by the Industrial Court allowing the 33. WP 5068 of 2024.odt 4 complaint of the employee is hereby quashed and set aside on a condition of depositing costs with the Industrial Court within a period of two weeks from today by the petitioner. The deposit of costs shall be a condition precedent. Failure to do so would revive the order of the Industrial Court allowing the complaint. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed merit of the matter and Learned Industrial Court shall decide the case on its own merit. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Privel