901. WP 6832 of 2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6832/2026 Kirti S/o Pramod Ubale and others ...Versus… Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur through its Commissioner and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. S.M. Mate, Advocate for petitioners Mr. R.V. Bhanarkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5 CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 04/09/2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 29/08/2026, passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court-3, Nagpur below Exh.U-19, thereby allowing the amendment application filed by the complainants to amend their complaint. 2. At the outset, only grievance raised by Mr. Mate, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the reply of he petitioners to the amendment application was not considered by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur while allowing the said amendment application. 3. Mr. Mate, learned Counsel further submits that though the impugned order shows that respondent Nos.2 to 17, the petitioners herein, were heard and their reply was considered, however, in fact, none of the contentions raised in the reply filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 17 i.e. petitioners herein, is considered by the learned Industrial Court while passing the impugned order dated 29/08/2026. Hence, the 2026:BHC-NAG:11770 901. WP 6832 of 2026.odt 2 order is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same needs to be interfered with by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction by setting aside the same. The learned Counsel further relies upon the Roznama dated 29/08/2026, wherein the same would show that the reply to the amendment application was filed by the petitioners on the very same day and the application for amendment was also decided on the same day i.e. on 31/08/2026. The Roznama itself reflects the fact that the petitioners were never heard before allowing the amendment application, which according to the petitioners, changes the very nature of the complaint filed by the complainants. He, therefore, prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29/08/2026, passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court-3, Nagpur below Exh.U-19. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhanarkar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5, original complainants in Complaint (ULP) No.10/2026 strongly opposes the present writ petition on the ground that the complaint filed by the respondents was directed to be decided expeditiously by the order dated 08/05/2026, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2520/2026. The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order itself would show that Exh.C-11 i.e. reply filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 17 was very much taken into consideration while allowing the amendment application. The learned Industrial Court has observed that the amendment is proposed only for challenging the seniority list published by the respondent No.1 dated 01/01/2025 and also seeking direction against the respondent No.1 to consider only those 901. WP 6832 of 2026.odt 3 employees for promotion, who had acquired the requisite eligibility criteria. Learned Industrial Court having found that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the complaint, has allowed the said amendment. The petitioners are having every right to file consequential reply, if any, to the amendment to the said complaint. However, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that the petitioners have also filed an identical complaint i.e. Complaint (ULP) No.179/2026, seeking quashment of the very same order dated 07/07/2026, which relaxes the condition in favour of some of the employees. Thus, the proposed amendment sought by the complainant, cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the present petitioners, who also stand on the same footing that of the complaints as the present petitioners had also sought quashment of the said order dated 07/07/2026. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the present petition. 5. I have gone through the order dated 29/08/2026, passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.10/2026 below Exh.U-19 and also the order dated 08/05/2026, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2520/2026. Perusal of the application for amendment filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein shows that the respondents have made the prayers in the proposed amendment, which are as under : - “(iii-a) Hold and declare that respondents have engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of ULP Act by issuing impugned order dtd. 07.07.2026 thereby granting relaxation to the 901. WP 6832 of 2026.odt 4 employees who do not possess requisite qualification of English 40 W.P.M. and Marathi 30 W.P.M. for obtaining same within one year from the date of passing of impugned order dtd. 07.07.2026. (iii-b) Quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 07.07.2026 by holding the same as passed without their being any provisions of law and rule in recruitment rules of the respondent no.1.” 6. Perusal of complaint filed by the petitioners bearing Complaint (ULP) No.179/2026 shows that identical prayers are made by the petitioners herein, which are as under :- “(a) Hold and declare that the respondent has engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act of 1971 by issuing the impugned order dated 07.07.2026, whereby the complainants have been directed first to acquire the typing qualification within a period of one year and to be considered for promotion only thereafter, though the service rules contain no such condition; (c) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 issued by the respondent, holding the same to be unfair, illegal and contrary to the service rules.” 7. Thus, perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioners herein would show that the identical prayers are made by the petitioners similar to the prayers made in the amendment application filed by the respondents, which is allowed by the impugned order. Thus, the petitioners cannot 901. WP 6832 of 2026.odt 5 be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order allowing the amendment to the complaint. Moreover, the impugned order dated 29/08/2026 has taken into consideration that the respondent Nos.2 to 17 i.e. the petitioners herein have filed their reply vide Exh.C-11, where they have opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the application on account of the grounds mentioned therein. 8. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not heard before allowing the amendment. As stated earlier, in view of the Complaint (ULP) No.179/2026 filed by the petitioners herein, wherein identical prayers are made, it cannot be said that the petitioners are aggrieved by such impugned order allowing the amendment. The petitioners are having every right to file consequential reply, if any, to the amendment allowed by the learned Industrial Court vide impugned order dated 29/08/2026. 9. No case is made out for interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. Writ Petition is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) Wadkar Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 07/09/2026 12:53:51