1 / 3 14.wp7696.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7696 OF 2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE TRIBAL DEVEPT. CORP., LTD. THR. MANAGING DIRECTOR, NASHIK AND ORS. VS RAMESH SONBAJI UIKE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.P. Bhongade, Advocate for petitioners. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present petition challenges the impugned judgment of the learned Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Complaint ULP No.07/2022. The said complaint was filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practice against the respondents while issuing the impugned order dated 01.02.2022. 3. The trial Court after hearing the third party on merits and after appreciating the entire Prity 2 / 3 14.wp7696.2026 evidence on record, allowed the complaint vide judgment dated 04.02.2026. By way of impugned judgment, the Industrial Court declared that the respondents are engaging in unfair labour practice by issuing the punishment order dated 01.02.2022 directing recovery of Rs.89,227/-. The said judgment is assailed in the present petition. 4. I have heard Shri Bhongade, learned counsel for the petitioners. He primarily contends that Item 5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the Act (supra) is not attracted, inasmuch as the said items operate in a very different perspective. He submits that fair a opportunity was granted to the respondent herein before taking any adverse action and the fine in that regard is contrary to the record. 5. Having gone through the impugned judgment, even if assuming that Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act, would not be attracted, on merits, there is a categorical finding of fact that, before imposing penalty and arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner-corporation has been put to pecuniary loss, no opportunity of hearing was given to him i.e. the respondent nor any enquiry was conducted. Even though Mr. Bhongade, points me out a communication dated 26.12.2018, which calls Prity 3 / 3 14.wp7696.2026 upon the respondent to deposit the amount disputed, the said communication would hardly be any relevance. 6. The said communication, in fact, records that pecuniary loss is caused to the petitioner on account of certain acts and omissions of the respondent and therefore, directs him to deposit the amount in question. The said communication does not amount to an opportunity of hearing and, at the most, can be termed as a post facto hearing. 7. No perversity, other than he has been pointed out in the judgment impugned, is made out. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/10/2026 17:10:01