Dattatraya V.Ambre vs Executive ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6504 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 6504 Bom
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2016

Bombay High Court

Dattatraya V.Ambre vs Executive ... on 17 November, 2016

Bench: R.V. Ghuge

                                                                      WP/2893/1992
                                            1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                              
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 2893 OF 1992




                                                      
     Dattatray Vithoba Ambre
     Aged 38 years, Occ. Daptari,
     (Class IV Servant), R/o Ganore
     Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.                      ..Petitioner




                                                     
     Versus

     1. The Executive Engineer,
     Ahmednagar Irrigation Division,




                                          
     Nagar Aurangabad Road,
     Ahmednagar.             
     2. The Superintending Engineer,
     Ahmednagar Irrigation Circle,
     Ahmednagar.
                            
     3. The Member,
     Industrial Court, Ahmednagar.               ..Respondents
      

                                          ...
                       Advocate for Petitioner : Shri U.S.Malte
                    AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri S.P.Sonpawale
   



                         Advocate for Respondent 3 : Deleted
                                          ...

                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: November 17, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Respondent No.3 is the Industrial Court and hence stands

deleted from the proceedings.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.1989

delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, by which, the Misc.

WP/2893/1992

Application No. 4 of 1987, seeking condonation of delay in filing a

Complaint under items 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said Act"), has been rejected.

3. This Court by its order dated 18.11.1992 has admitted this

petition and granted relief in terms of prayer clause (D), which reads

as under:-

"(D) During pendency and final disposal of this petition, the

petitioner be absorbed as a Junior Clerk with Irrigation Department - respondent Nos.1 and 2, and be paid salary and allowances accordingly."

Pursuant to the above relief, the petitioner has been absorbed

as a Junior Clerk.

4. I have considered the submissions of Shri Malte, learned

Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf

of the respondent.

5. The petitioner had approached the Industrial Court with the

grievance that he has been superseded when alleged junior

candidates were promoted in October 1982, 23.5.1983 and 10.6.1986.

The complaint was filed on 23.3.1987 and the limitation period under

WP/2893/1992

the Industrial Court Regulations, 1975 is of 90 days. The complaint

was, therefore, delayed by six months.

6. It has come on record through the oral and documentary

evidence in support of the application for condonation of delay that

the last representation made by the petitioner expressing his

grievance against supersession was dated 13.2.1987. Even if the

evidence reveals that the petitioner does not have the documentary

evidence to prove that his representations were served on the

respondents, yet the delay of six months cannot be termed as being

deliberate or inordinate.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition

Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others [(1987) 2 SCC 107],

has observed while dealing with the application for condonation of

delay, as under:-

" 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

WP/2893/1992

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be

applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations

are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-

deliberate delay.

5.

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on

account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds

but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

8. Despite the strenuous contentions of the learned AGP that the

delay of six months is not properly explained, I find that laches are

not attributable to the conduct of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the

delay of six months cannot be said to be fatal to the proceedings.

9. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 8.9.1989 is quashed and set aside. Misc.

Application No.4 of 1987 stands allowed. The Industrial Court shall

WP/2893/1992

proceed to register the complaint filed by the petitioner on

23.3.1987. The litigating sides shall appear before the Industrial

Court on 3.12.2016 and formal notices need not be issued by the

Industrial Court.