Laldas S/O Hari Badole vs Divisional Manager, Van Prakalp, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2821 Bom

       lpa201.13                                                                      1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                           
                               NAGPUR BENCH

                  LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.  201  OF  2013




                                                   
                                    IN
                      WRIT PETITION  NO. 159  OF  2013

      Laldas s/o Hari Badole,




                                                  
      r/o Parsodi, Tahsil - Sakoli,
      District - Bhandara.                           ...   APPELLANT

                        Versus




                                        
      1. Divisional Manager, 
         Van Prakalp, Forest Development
         Corporation of Maharashtra 
         (FDCM), Division Bhandara,
                            
         District - Bhandara.

      2. Range Forest Officer,
         Van Prakalp, FDCM, Sonegaon,
      

         Tahsil - Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara.
   



      3. Presiding Officer,
         Labour Court, Bhandara.                     ...   RESPONDENTS





      Shri M.P. Jaiswal with Shri R.S. Bhure, Advocate for the appellant.
      Shri M.M. Sudame, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
                         .....

                                   CORAM :      B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &





                                                KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

JUNE 14, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Heard finally Shri Jaiswal with Shri Bhure, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudame, learned counsel for

respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. The appellant - a temporary employee was trapped

in Anti Corruption matter on 15.02.1992. Because of the said

trap and his alleged involvement, he was removed on

05.03.1994. Special case against him continued till 06.10.2004

when he was acquitted. After acquittal, he issued Approach

notice to his employer claiming reinstatement in 2005. This

ultimately resulted in Appropriate Government Referring the

dispute to Labour Court, Bhandara as Reference IDA No. 5 of

2006. Vide Award dated 15.03.2012, Reference Court found

that termination was sought to be questioned after long delay

of 11 years. The Presiding Officer found that there was no

explanation for not approaching the Court earlier and hence

answered the reference in negative.

3. This Award was questioned in Writ Petition No. 159

of 2013 and the learned Single Judge of this Court on

15.02.2013 found that the conclusions drawn by the Presiding

Officer were neither perverse nor erroneous, therefore, writ

petition was dismissed.

4. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel by placing reliance

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar,

reported at 2015 (2) Mh. L.J. 107, submits that as per

provisions of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, such a dispute can be raised at any time and hence the

finding that the Approach notice was given after 11 years by

itself is not sufficient to answer the reference in negative. He

points out that a temporary worker was removed because of his

alleged involvement in Anti Corruption matter and as such, had

he approached at that juncture, during the pendency of

Criminal trial, the issue could not have been answered

favourably. He attempts to demonstrate that occasion to claim

reinstatement arose only after acquittal on 06.10.2004.

5. Shri Sudame, learned counsel disputes this. He

states that when the worker was terminated in the year 1994,

he ought to have approached the Tribunal within a reasonable

time. The fact that he did not approach till his acquittal or then

within reasonable time even after acquittal, shows negligence

on his part. According to him, therefore, the learned Labour

Court has rightly refused to take cognizance of a dead issue.

He further contends that the learned Single Judge has

appreciated the controversy as presented and, therefore, the

judgment of the learned Single Judge also calls for no

interference.

6.

We find that when the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, does not prescribe any express period of limitation, mere

fact that the Approach notice was given after 11 years was not

sufficient to refuse to try the dispute referred on merits. The

Presiding Officer of Labour Court has not found the delay

unreasonable. The submission of the petitioner that he could

not have successfully assailed his termination before his

acquittal, cannot be lightly brushed aside. If this submission is

correct, the impact of his acquittal and the period thereafter

taken by him to serve Approach notice also need to be

examined to find out whether action has been taken within a

reasonable time. There is no application of mind by the

learned Presiding Officer on these lines.

7. In this situation, we find Award dated 15.03.2012

delivered by Labour Court, Bhandara, in Reference IDA No. 5 of

2006 unsustainable. It is quashed and set aside. The Reference

proceedings are restored back to the file of Labour Court for

taking this cognizance in accordance with law. Needless to

mention that whether the dispute has been raised within a

reasonable time, shall be tried as one of the issues while

adjudicating the dispute on merits and keeping in mind the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir

Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, (supra).

8. Letters Patent Appeal is thus allowed and disposed

of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

               JUDGE                                                     JUDGE
                                                ******

      *GS.