The Bombay High Court, under the jurisdiction of Justice Milind N. Jadhav, has upheld the condonation of a significant delay in the filing of a case against Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport (hereinafter referred to as ‘BEST’). The case involved the termination of services of seven workers by BEST, and the Court’s decision emphasized a liberal and justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications for the condonation of delay. It ruled that it is not mandatory to provide a day-by-day explanation for a delay in filing a case. Instead, the Court emphasised that offering comprehensive reasons, in line with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court, is deemed sufficient for the condonation of delay in the application.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The essential facts leading to the filing of the writ petition revolved around the termination of services of seven casual workers (respondent nos. 2 to 8) by BEST between 2006 and 2010. The oral termination order was issued on March 20, 2015. Subsequent attempts by the workers to address their grievances, including letters and representations through recognized unions, were met with no response from BEST.
In response to the termination, Respondents approached the Bombay Electric Workers Union, seeking redressal for their grievances. Despite their efforts, no action was taken by BEST. Eventually, in January 2021, Respondent No. 1 (BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana) filed a complaint before the Labor Court under Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The crux of the matter lay in the condonation of the substantial delay of 5 years and 11 months in filing the said complaint.
Contentions of the Parties:
The contentions presented by BEST, through its advocate Arsh Misra, primarily rested on challenging the condonation of the delay. Mr. Misra contended that the workers' delay in filing the complaint was not sufficiently explained, asserting that the day-by-day reasons for the delay were lacking. He argued that the delay had to be explained meticulously for each day and further contended that the complaints filed by the workers were barred by limitation, rendering them not maintainable.
In opposition, advocates Shailesh Pathak and Jay Vora, representing the workers, argued that the termination order was never communicated to the workers. They asserted that BEST had refused to provide employment to the workers as per its own guidelines and highlighted that the representations made by the workers were met with silence. The contention was that the representations were under consideration, as evidenced by the lack of response from BEST.
Observations of the Court:
The primary contention raised by BEST was that the delay of 5 years and 11 months in filing the complaint was not sufficiently explained by the workers. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that a day-by-day explanation for the delay was not necessary, as broad reasons were provided, as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
Justice Jadhav, in his discerning analysis, emphasized the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications for the condonation of delay. The court invoked the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, underlining the elasticity of the term "sufficient cause" and the importance of a non-pedantic perspective.
The Court rejected BEST's argument that a day-by-day explanation for the delay was necessary, stating, "by objecting to the delay, rather reasons for the delay, these workers will be deprived of their legitimate right of getting their complaint adjudicated. Insistence by the Petitioner that delay has to be explained for each day cannot be countenanced."
Justice Jadhav acknowledged the workers' submission that they had initially approached the recognized union with their grievances, followed by an unanswered letter to BEST. In 2020, the workers sought redressal from another union. The Court accepted these reasons as broad explanations for the delay, adhering to the Supreme Court's guidelines.
Furthermore, the Court recognized the potential deprivation of the workers' legitimate rights if the delay were to be used as a ground for dismissal. It upheld the judgments of both the Labor Court and the Industrial Tribunal, emphasizing the workers' right to have their complaints adjudicated.
The Decision of the Court:
The Court, while dismissing BEST's writ petition, instructed the Labor Court to hear and decide the workers' complaint within a year, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport vs. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8045 of 2023
Advocate of the Petitioner: Mr. Arsh Misra
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Pathak a/w. Jay Vora, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
