Keshav Sopan Ghogre vs The President, Osmanabad Dist ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3425 Bom

                                             1
                                                              912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt


                   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                                             
                          APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION




                                                     
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 3421 OF 2015

    Keshav s/o Sopan Ghogre,




                                                    
    Age: 57 years, Occu: Service,
    R/o. Upala (M), Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.                ... PETITIONER


                       V E R S U S




                                           
    1.         The President,     
               Osmanabad Dist. Postal Karmachari
               Pat Sanstha, Parmar Building,
               Sawarkar Chowk, Osmanabad,
                                 
               Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

    2          The Secretary,
               Osmanabad Dist. Postal Karmachari
      

               Pat Sanstha, Parmar Building,
               Sawarkar Chowk, Osmanabad,
   



               Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

    3          Shri B. H. Sawtar,
               (Sahakari Adhikari Shreeni-1





               Sallaghana Sahayyak Nibandhak,
               Shakari Sanstha, Tq. Osmanabad)
               and Adminstrator,
               Osmanabad Dist. Postal Karmachari
               Pat Sanstha, Parmar Building,





               Sawarkar Chowk, Osmanabad,
               Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.                     ... RESPONDENTS


                                          ...
    Mr. S. B. Bhosale, Advocate for Petitioner.
    Mr. V. V. Ingle, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                                        ...




         ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2016                ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:27:33 :::
                                                   2
                                                                      912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt


                                                   CORAM  : P. R. BORA, J.

                                                   DATE      : 28th June, 2016.




                                                                                     
                                                             
    ORAL JUDGMENT: 
     
    .                 Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith.  By consent of the




                                                            

learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for

final disposal.

The Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court by

taking exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court in

Miscellaneous (ULP) No.1 of 2013. The learned Industrial Court has

rejected the said application. Vide the said application, the Petitioner

had sought condonation of delay, which has caused in filing a revision

application by him against the order passed by the Labour Court,

Latur on 7th October, 2011 in Complaint (ULP) No.41 of 2006.

3 The present Petitioner had initially filed a complaint before

the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 6th March, 2010.

Against the said decision, the Petitioner had filed a revision before the

Industrial Court bearing Revision (ULP) No.14 of 2010 and the same

was allowed by the Industrial Court, Latur vide its order dated 10th

August, 2010. The Industrial Court had granted back-wages to the

912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt

extent of 25% only. The decision of the Industrial Court in Revision

No.14 of 2010 was challenged by the present Petitioner as well as the

present Respondent by filing writ petitions before this Court. Writ

Petition No.9280 of 2010 was filed by the present Respondent, which

was disposed of by this Court vide order passed on 23 rd March, 2011

whereby the matter was remanded to Labour Court, Latur and a fresh

hearing was directed. Writ Petition No.6713 of 2011, which was filed

by the present Petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 25 th

October, 2012. In the meanwhile, the Labour Court had finally

decided the complaint presented by the present Petitioner on 7th

October, 2011. The Labour Court allowed the complaint filed by the

Petitioner and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service,

however, without back-wages. While disposing of the writ petition,

this Court had, therefore, granted liberty to the present Petitioner to

challenge the said order by filing a revision application before the

Industrial Court. Said order reads thus:

"1. Writ Petition (6713/2011) is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, before the Industrial

912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt

Court against the judgment and order dated

7.10.2011 in Complaint (ULP) No.41 of 2006, passed by the Labour Court, Latur.

Civil Application (No.7713/2012) also stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

2. The learned Counsel states that the revision shall be filed within a period of one month

from today. After filing of the revision, in view of the

retirement of the petitioner, the Industrial Court shall endeavour to decide the said revision within a period

of six months from the date of filing of the revision, since the matter relates to the year 2006. Considering pendency of this Writ Petition, the

Industrial Court may sympathetically consider the issue of limitation."

4 As per the liberty granted by this Court, the Petitioner

approached the Industrial Court, Latur, however, belatedly and since

the delay has occasioned in approaching the Court, filed an

application Miscellaneous (ULP) No.1 of 2013 seeking condonation of

delay, which has caused in filing the revision application before the

said Court. After hearing of the said application, the Industrial Court

rejected the said application and the said order is impugned in the

present petition.

912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt

5 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that

there were genuine reasons because of which the Petitioner was

prevented from approaching the Court within the time given by this

Court for approaching the Industrial Court. The learned counsel

submitted that since the Petitioner was required to be hospitalized, he

could not file the revision application within time. The learned counsel

submitted that since the Petitioner was represented before the

Industrial Court by a labour representative and not by a lawyer, the

procedural lapses had occurred and for want of such compliance, the

Industrial Court has refused to allow the application so filed by the

Petitioner.

6 Shri Ingle, learned counsel for Respondent has opposed

the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. The learned

counsel submitted that despite several opportunities the objections

were not removed and as such, there was no alternative before the

Industrial Court except to dismiss his application. The learned

counsel further submitted that in view of the order passed by this

Court stipulating the time limit of one month for filing the revision

before the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court was right in stating

912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt

that time stipulated by the High Court could not have been extended

by the Industrial Court. The learned counsel submitted that, if at all,

the Petitioner was to get extended the time, he ought to have

approached this Court and the Industrial Court was not empowered to

extend the period, which was stipulated by the High Court. The

learned counsel therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7 I have gone through the impugned order. It reveals that

the learned Industrial Court has rejected the application seeking

condonation of delay filed by the present Petitioner on the ground that

the Petitioner did not file alongwith application for condonation of

delay, copy of revision memo as well as the certified copy of the order

passed by the Labour Court against which the revision was intended

to be filed by the Petitioner. There is also a reference in the

impugned judgment that when the time limit was fixed by the High

Court vide order passed on 23rd March, 2011, it was not within the

competence of the said Court to condone the delay.

8 After having considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the

material on record, it appears that all the three grounds on which the

912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt

Industrial Court has refused to condone the delay occasioned in filing

the revision application by the Petitioner, are technical grounds. The

learned counsel for the Petitioner has undertaken before this Court

that all these objections will be removed and the compliances as are

suggested will be made by the Petitioner, but his petition may be

heard on merits by directing the Industrial Court to consider his

application for condonation of delay on its own merits. Though it is

true that in the order passed on 23rd March, 2011, while disposing of

Writ Petition No.6713 of 2011, liberty was given to the present

Petitioner to approach the Industrial Court within a month, if the said

order read as a whole, shows that it was the statement made by the

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that within a month the

Petitioner will file an application before the Industrial Court. However,

in the meanwhile, as has been submitted in the petition, the Petitioner

got ill and was required to be hospitalized and that was the reason he

could not approach the Court within the stipulated period. In such

circumstances, it t appears to me that merely because some delay

has occurred and that some procedural compliances remained to be

made, the right of the Petitioner to agitate his dispute on merit cannot

be denied. In view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel

912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt

for the Petitioner that all compliances will be made, I deem it

appropriate to pass the following order :

O R D E R

I. The Writ Petition is allowed.

II. The order passed by the Industrial Court in

Miscellaneous (ULP) No.1 of 2013 stands

quashed and set aside and Miscellaneous (ULP)

No.1 of 2013 stands restored to the file of the

Industrial Court, Latur.

III. Industrial Court shall allow the Petitioner to file on

record memo of revision and the certified copy of

the order passed by the Labour Court within two

weeks whereupon the Industrial Court shall hear

the parties and decide the application on merits.

IV. Time granted by this Court of one month to the

Petitioner for approaching the Industrial Court

shall stand extended by virtue of this order.

912 WRIT PETITION.3421.2015.odt

V. The Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/-

(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the Respondent.

VI. Rule made absolute in above terms.

[ P. R. BORA, J. ] ndm