Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Agriculture University, Akola Vs Purushottam Pitambar Jayale — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Agriculture University, Akola Vs Purushottam Pitambar Jayale — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 17-10-2023 passed in Complaint ULP No.185/2015 by the Industrial Court, Akola set aside subject to cost of Rs 10,000/- payable by the petitioner; complaint to be taken up from the stage of cross-examination of the complainant and decided expeditiously, within six months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17-10-2023 passed in Complaint ULP No.185/2015 by the Industrial Court, Akola — rendered because the petitioner's advocate failed to appear despite the petitioner having appeared and filed a reply — ought to be set aside.

Court's answer

The petitioner had caused appearance before the Industrial Court and filed a reply, indicating its intention to contest the proceeding; the impugned order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner on merits owing to the non-appearance of its counsel.

Ratio / Principle

While a party cannot be made to suffer on account of the lapse on the part of its advocate, the prejudice caused to the other side by such conduct cannot be ignored.

Key takeaways

In the facts of the case, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs 10,000/- by the petitioner.ratio¶16
Proceedings of Complaint ULP No.185/2015 are to be taken up by the Industrial Court from the stage of cross-examination of the complainant.ratio¶17
Since the complaint is of year 2016, the Industrial Court is directed to decide it expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No.4376/2024, decided 25-06-2025 (R.M. Joshi, J.) — Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh v. Purushottam. By order dated 17-10-2023 the Industrial Court, Akola had decided Complaint ULP No.185/2015 in the absence of the petitioner-university: although the university had been served, had appeared through an advocate and filed a reply, its advocate thereafter failed to appear. Held: a party cannot be made to suffer on account of the lapse of its advocate, but the prejudice caused to the other side by such conduct cannot be ignored; accordingly the impugned order was set aside subject to cost of Rs 10,000/- payable by the petitioner, with the complaint to be resumed from the stage of cross-examination of the complainant and decided expeditiously, in any case within six months. Petition allowed.

1 wp 4376.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Writ Petition No.4376/2024 Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh V Purushottam

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

- - - - Mr. Abhay Sambre, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. P. Kavishwar, Adv for respondent.

CORAM : R.M. Joshi, J. DATE : 25-06-2025.

Petitioner university seeks setting aside of order dated 17-

10-2023 passed in Complaint ULP No.185/2015 by Industrial Court,

Akola.

The fact appeared from the record indicate that the petitioner was respondent in the said complaint and was duly served with the notice. Appearance was caused through an Advocate and reply was also filed to the complaint. It is thereafter the advocate for the petitioner failed to appear before the Industrial Court. It has resulted into the decision of the said complaint in absence of the advocate.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner being University entrusted the work of appearance to the advocate and for his fault the University need not be made to suffer.

Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition.

2 wp 4376.24.odt

Perusal for the record indicates that the petitioner has caused appearance in the proceedings before the Industrial Court and also filed reply. This apparently indicates it's intention to contest the proceeding. However, thereafter on account of the non appearance of the counsel, the order came to be passed without hearing of the petitioner on merits.

Though it is true that the party cannot be made to suffer on account of the lapse on the part of the advocate, however at the same time the prejudice caused to the other side also cannot be ignored by the conduct of such party. In the facts of the case, the impugned order deserves to be set aside subject to cost of Rs 10,000/payable by the petitioner.

Petition is allowed in above terms. Proceedings of Complaint ULP No.185/2015 be taken up by the Industrial Court from the stage of cross examination of the complainant.

Since the complaint is of year 2016, Industrial Court is directed to decide the said complaint expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from today.

( R.M. Joshi, J. )

Deshmukh