Bombay High Court
The Commissioner Aurangabad ... vs Anita Bhagwan Ugale on 10 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/8476/2016/Group
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8476 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Sagar s/o. Tukaram Narkarig
Age: 32 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Kabeer Nagar, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8486 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Sangitabai Bhaskar Kamble,
Age: Major, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Nagsen Nagar, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8487 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:38:51 :::
WP/8476/2016/Group
2
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Bhartibai W/o. Vijay Bhalerao,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Near Bhadkal Gate,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8488 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Kantabai W/o. Ashok Gangawane,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Town Hall,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8489 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Kasturabai Annu Alkunte,
Age: 54 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Pragati Colony,
Town Hall, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:38:51 :::
WP/8476/2016/Group
3
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8490 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Sundarbai W/o. Suryabhan Mhaske,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Anand Nagar,
Asifiya, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8491 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Anita W/o. Bhagwan Ugale,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Near Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden,
Gulabwadi, Jai Bheem Nagar, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8492 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:38:51 :::
WP/8476/2016/Group
4
Versus
Kailas S/o. Uttamrao Hiwrale,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Jaibeem Nagar, Town Hall,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8493 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Chandrakalabai W/o. Bhagwan Hiwrale,
Age: Major, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Kachiwada, Jadhav Mandi,
N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8494 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Amol S/o. Dhuraji Suryanarayan,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, N-7, CIDCO,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:38:51 :::
WP/8476/2016/Group
5
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8498 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Rekhabai Raosaheb Hiwrale,
Age: Major, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Jaibhimnagar, Town Hall,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8499 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Bharat S/o. Devidas Kale,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Ektanagar, Harsool,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8506 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:38:51 :::
WP/8476/2016/Group
6
Versus
Nandu S/o. Sundarlal Sable,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Begumpura, Ghati Area,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8507 OF 2016
The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Through its Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete
Age: 37 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
Bhagwan S/o. Sampatrao Ugale,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Town Hall,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
...
Advocates for the Petitioners : Shri S.S.Tope
Advocate for the Respondents : Shri R.K.Khandelwal
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 10, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
WP/8476/2016/Group
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition
is taken up for final disposal.
4. The petitioner - Municipal Corporation in all these matters is
challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court on Misc.
Applications. The said applications were filed by the identically
placed respondents, who were seeking restoration of the original
reference proceedings and were praying for condonation of delay in
filing of the applications. The specific details about the
respondent / employees, their reference case numbers, dates of
award and the dates of their applications for condonation of delay,
are set out in a tabular form as under:-
Sr WP No. Respon- Misc. Ref.No. Date of Date of Delay
dent Appln. Award verification in
No. on Delay Days
Condonation
Application
1 8476/2016 Sagar 22/2014 214/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 460
Tukaram
Narkar
2 8486/2016 Sangita 17/2014 422/2010 28.3.2011 12.6.2014 1120
Bhaskar
Kamble
3 8487/2016 Bhartibai 19/2014 415/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 1120
Vijay
Bhalerao
4 8488/2016 Kantabai 18/2014 420/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 1120
Ashok
Gangawane
5 8489/2016 Kasturbai 11/2014 405/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 1120
Annu
Alkunte
6 8490/2016 Sundarbai 21/2014 210/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 460
Suryabhan
Mhaske
WP/8476/2016/Group
7 8491/2016 Anita 20/2014 208/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 460
Bhagwan
Ugale
8 8492/2016 Kailash 15/2014 427/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 1120
Uttamrao
Hiwrale
9 8493/2016 Chandra- 24/2014 404/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 1120
kalabai
Bhagwan
Hiwrale
10 8494/2016 Amol 13/2014 215/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 460
Dhuraji
Surya-
narayan
11 8498/2016 Rekhabai 9/2014 406/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 1120
Raosaheb
Hiwrale
12 8499/2016 Bharat 10/2014 417/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 1120
Devidas
Kale
13 8506/2016 Nandu 12/2014 213/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 460
Sundarlal
Sable
14 8507/2016 Bhagwan 23/2014 269/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 460
Sampatrao
Ugale
5. The admitted fact situation is that in all the above matters,
the Reference Cases, registered with the Labour Court at
Aurangabad, in which the petitioner was the first party employer and
the respondents herein were identically placed second party
workmen, have been dismissed as the respondents did not approach
the Labour Court for presenting their statements of claims.
6. It is also undisputed that all the awards at issue have been
published by the Labour Court by following the due procedure laid
down under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial
WP/8476/2016/Group
Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. It is also admitted that all the Misc.
Applications were filed by the respondents after about 400 to 1100
days from the date of the publication of the awards.
7. Shri Tope, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that
the Labour Court had lost jurisdiction over the matters after 30 days
from the date of the publication of the award and hence, had no
jurisdiction to exercise over such matters.
8.
Shri Khandelwal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of all
the respondents submits that all the respondents are workers and
poor persons. Though their addresses were mentioned in the order
of reference, they did not receive notices and therefore, were not
aware that the Reference proceedings had commenced before the
Labour Court. He places reliance upon an unreported order of this
Court dated 6.9.2010, delivered in Writ Petition No.8682 of 2009
[Rajman Srikrishna Morya Vs. Marshall Security Private Limited].
Contention is that this Court has held that the delay was explained in
the matter as the impugned order was not an award and hence the
application for condonation of delay could be entertained.
9. I do not find that the submissions of Shri Khandelwal could be
accepted since in the Rajman case (supra) the issue as to whether
the Labour Court became functus officio was neither raised nor
WP/8476/2016/Group
canvassed. This Court, in the matter of Dnyaneshwar Anantrao
Kulkarni Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, PWD and others [2015 III
CLR 81], has dealt with the issue of Sections 17 and 17A of the ID Act
1947 read with the Bombay Rules. It was concluded that the Labour
Court would lose it's jurisdiction after 30 days of the publication of
the award, considering the ratio laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hansraj [(2005) 8 SCC
331]. This judgment was not cited in the Rajman case (supra).
10.
In the present case, the Reference has been rejected as there
was no party before the Labour Court, even to present the statement
of claim. The Reference was, therefore, answered in the negative.
As such, the respondents in the present cases could surely challenge
the awards in this Court.
11. Notwithstanding the above, even if it is to be considered as to
whether the reasons cited by the respondents for condonation of
delay were justified or not, it cannot be ignored that the delay is in
between 460 to 1100 days. The addresses supplied by the
respondents were of their own Union Leader. If notices are issued to
the said leader and if the said Union Leader does not intimate the
concerned Advocate or the respondents herein, the reasons assigned,
prima facie, may not appear to be justified.
WP/8476/2016/Group
12. Nevertheless, the respondents herein, can challenge the
rejection of the Reference matters, by obtaining a copy of the award
passed by the Labour Court, through Writ Petitions before this Court.
The said remedy cannot be taken away and the respondents would be
at liberty to take recourse to the same.
13. In the light of the above, these petitions are allowed. The
impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the Misc.
Applications are rejected.
14. Nevertheless, the respondents are at liberty to assail the
rejection of their reference before this Court, through Writ Petitions
and the time spent by the respondents before the Labour Court in
the pending proceedings and in this Court in these petitions, could be
considered as a ground for entertaining the Writ Petition.
15. Rule, in all these petitions, is made absolute accordingly.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
