Bombay High Court
Sudhakar Namdeo Gite vs The Factory Manager, Hindustan ... on 24 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp6619.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6619/2014
Sudhakar Namdeo Gite,
aged about 50 Yrs.,
Guru Nanak Nagar,
Sutula Buzrukh,
Plot No.61A, Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana. ..Petitioner.
..VS..
1. The Factory Manager,
Hindustan Lever Ltd.,
C/9 MIDC - Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldhana.
2. The Industrial Court,
Akola. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.D. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 24.6.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.D. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Harish Thakur,
Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondent No.2.
2. The employee has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the
Industrial Court rejecting the application filed by him for restoration of the complaint
dismissed in default.
2 wp6619.14
3. The employee filed complaint before the Industrial Court making
grievance that while transferring the employee from Nashik to Khamgaon he is placed
in a lower scale and he is entitled to be placed in appropriate scale. The trial
progressed and at the stage of recording of evidence of the employee, the complaint is
dismissed on 23rd November, 2012. The employee filed the application praying for
restoration of the complaint and this application is dismissed by the impugned order.
4. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 has opposed the petition
on the ground that the employee was never serious in prosecuting the matter and did
not attend for more than a year. It is submitted that the matter was fixed for
recording of evidence of the employee since 14 th June, 2011, however, the employee
failed to lead evidence and on 23rd November, 2012 neither the employee nor his
representative were present and, therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner - employee relying on the
judgment given in the case of G.P. Srivastava V/s. R.K. Raizada and others reported in
(2000) 3 SCC 54 has submitted that in such situation the party seeking restoration of
the proceedings dismissed in default has to show sufficient cause for non-appearance
on the date on which the proceedings are dismissed and the conduct of the party on
the earlier dates is not relevant. It is further submitted that the employee had been
bonafide prosecuting his legitimate claim and the pendency of the matter adversely
affected the employee inasmuch as the employee is working on the lower pay-scale
and is entitled for higher pay-scale. It is submitted that the employee has not gained
anything by delaying the proceedings.
3 wp6619.14
6. Considering the facts on the record, I find that the submissions made on
behalf of the employee are required to be accepted. The respondent No.1 - employer
has not been able to show as to what benefits the employee has derived by delaying
the disposal of proceedings and by not attending the matter.
Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The application filed by the employee for restoration of complaint is
allowed.
(iii)
The complaint ULP No.3/2005 is restored.
(iv) The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court, Akola on 1 st August,
2016.
(v) The Industrial Court shall decide the complaint according to law.
(vi) The petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the matter.
(vii) The petition is allowed in the above terms.
(viii) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
