Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER in this writ petition has assailed an order (P-l) dated 23-1-04 passed by the Industrial Court by which an order (P-3) dated 29-8-03 passed by the Labour Court has been reversed. ( 2. ) THE Labour Court has directed the reinstatement with 75% of the back wages. Appeal has been allowed on the short ground that petitioner Shri Ramesh Verma was in the employment at Betul Depot. He has filed an application in the Labour Court at Hoshangabad. On the ground of territorial jurisdiction of Hoshangabad, the Industrial Court has set aside the order. ( 3. ) PETITIONER has assailed the order (P-l) passed by the Industrial Court in this petition on the ground that there was no failure of justice caused to either party. Both the parties have adduced the evidence before Labour Court, thus, appeal ought not to have been allowed only in the technical plea. Labour Court has held that incumbent Depot Manager of Hoshangabad was incharge of Betul Depot also and the same person who was posted at Hoshangabad has passed the order with respect to Betul Depot, hence, it can not be said that there was no jurisdiction with the Labour Court as the person who passed the order resided within the territory of Hoshangabad. ( 4. ) SHRI Shobhitaditya, learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that no interference is called for in this writ petition as petitioner was in the employment of Betul; merely on ground that a person posted at Hoshangabad was incharge of the Betul Depot also would not confer jurisdiction on Hoshangabad Court. Petitioner ought to have filed application in Betul, hence, the order passed by the Industrial Court is proper, no interference is called for. ( 5. ) IN my opinion, the order passed by the Industrial Court is liable to be set aside. The Apex Court in R. S. D. V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. , ,, AIR1993 SC 2094 , JT1993 (1 )SC 617 , 1993 (1 ) SCALE262 , (1993 )2 SCC130 , 1993 Supp (3 )SCC518 , has laid down that there has to be failure of justice due to territorial jurisdiction; once the case has been tried on merits, same should not be ordinarily set aside; failure of justice has to be necessarily be shown. The Apex Court in aforesaid decision has laid down 3 conditions in Para 7 thus : *** *** *** *** *** "the above provision clearly lays down that such objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by the Appellate or Revisional Court subject to the following conditions : (i) That such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity; (ii) In all cases where issues are settled then at or before such settlement of issues; (iii) There has been a consequent failure of justice. ( 6. ) EVEN if an objection as to territorial jurisdiction is justified until unless it is shown that there has been failure of justice, order need not be set aside on the technical ground. This Court in Brihaspali Bai v. Mohanlal Chintaram Swarnkar, 1994 MPLJ 878 , has laid down that even where there is no pecuniary jurisdiction, finding has to be recorded that there is failure of justice by assumption of jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the respondents is unable to point out failure of justice; evidence has been adduced by both the parties; they had availed full opportunity to meet the rival case, thus, in my opinion, there has been no failure of justice owing to the place of suing. ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the order passed by the Industrial Court is set aside. Industrial Court is directed to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law within 3 months. ( 8. ) WRIT petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. C. C. as per rules.