Bombay High Court
Tarkeshwarprasad Mandal Dukkan vs Executive Engineer, Bihar Water ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp1190.13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR
BENCH NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1190 OF 2013
Tarkeshwarprasad Mandal Dukkan
Mahato, aged 41 yrs. R/o Samata
Nagar, Neri Ward No. 6, Durgapur,
Chandrapur. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1] Executive Engineer, Bihar
Water Development Corporation
Ltd. Daroga Raipath, Surpentine
Road, Patna Bihar State.
2] The Managing Director,
Bihar Water Development Corporation
Ltd. Daroga Raipath, Surpentine
Road, Patna Bihar State.
3] The Labour Court, Chandrapur.
4] The Industrial Court, Chandrapur. RESPONDENTS.
Shri C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Petition dismissed against respondent No.1.
None for the respondent no.2.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos. 3 & 4.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : JUNE 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
In view of notice for final disposal, the writ petition is heard
finally.
wp1190.13
2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2011
passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the revision petition filed by
the petitioner in default. The subsequent order dated 05.11.2012
passed by the Industrial Court rejecting the application for restoration
of the proceedings is also under challenge.
3] It is submitted by Shri C. V. Jagdale, the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the complaint filed by the petitioner was partly
allowed by the Labour Court on 01.11.2004 by directing the petitioner's
reinstatement. As the relief of back wages was not granted, the
petitioner had filed a revision petition on 11.10.2007. Due to absence
of the petitioner's counsel the proceedings came to be dismissed. He
submitted that the Industrial Court while dismissing the proceedings
also observed that the revision petition was barred by limitation.
According to the learned counsel the revision petition was required to
be filed within a period of three years from the date of the order of the
Labour Court. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the
decision in Nandkumar Kashinth Deorukhkar and others Vs.
Standara Mill Company Ltd. and another 2006(5) Maharashtra
Law Journal 668. It is, therefore, submitted that proceedings deserve
to be restored so that same can be heard on merits.
4] The respondent no. 2 is duly served but has not entered
wp1190.13
appearance. Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari the learned Assistant
Government Pleader appears for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
5] Perusal of the record indicates that the Labour Court partly
allowed the complaint on 01.11.2004. The revision petition was filed
on 11.10.2007 which is within a period of three years. As observed in
Nandkumar (supra) the revision petition is required to be filed within
a reasonable time which cannot exceed three years. In the present
case, the revision petition having been filed within a period of three
years from the date of the order of the Labour Court, the observations
in the impugned order dated 05.11.2012 that the revision petition was
barred by limitation are therefore contrary to the aforesaid judgment.
6] Once it is found that the revision petition is filed within a
period of three years, the interests of justice require that the same be
decided on its own merits. Perusal of the contents of the application
for restoration of the proceedings indicates the petitioner has assigned
reasons for his absence. By accepting the said reasons, the
proceedings can be restored for being heard on merits.
7] Accordingly the following order is passed:
The orders dated 17.10.2011 and 05.11.2012 passed in
Revision ULP No. 43 of 2007 and Miscellaneous Application No. 03 of
2007 are set aside.
The Revision petition is restored to file for being decided on
wp1190.13
merits.
The Industrial Court shall issue fresh notices to the non-
applicants in the revision petition before deciding the same on merits.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
svk
