Bombay High Court
M/S Mahaveer Paper Products Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 28 November, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2006/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 OF 1997
M/s Mahaveer Paper Products Ltd.,
MIDC Area, Station Road, Aurangabad
through its Managing Director
Ravindra Khivraj Gadiya, age 38 years,
Occupation Business, R/o Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Shamrao Janoji Sarkateig
Age major, Occ. Labour
R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
3. Damodhar Shripat Sathe,
Age major, Occ. Labour
R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
4. Anil Laxmanrao Kulkarni,
Age major, Occ. Labour
R/o Savita General Stores,
Opp. SRT No.52, Harsh Nagar,
Labour Colony, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri P.S.Shinde
h/f Shri S.G. Shinde
AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri S.N.Kendre
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: November 28, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.1997,
passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Misc. Application (ULP)
WP/2006/1997
Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of 1996.
2. This Court while admitting the petition on 4.9.1997, refused
interim relief to the petitioner.
3. The learned Advocates for the petitioner have strenuously
criticized the impugned order. Contention is that the Court, which
delivers a judgment, ex-parte, has the inherent power to recall or
review it's judgment. Merely because the application for recalling
the order was not filed within 30 days from the date of the
judgment, would not mean that the Industrial Court has no
jurisdiction to review it's own order. It is further submitted that
since this petition has been admitted, the petitioner desires that the
issues raised in this petition be decided on their own merits. My
attention is drawn to the nine grounds set out by the petitioner
below paragraph No.11 to support the contention that the delay of
748 days could have been condoned and the Industrial Court could
have reviewed it's own judgment.
4. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates for the petitioner and have gone through the petition
paper book with their assistance. Learned AGP has appeared on
behalf of respondent No.1, who is a formal party. None has appeared
for respondents 2 to 4 employees, who are the original complainants
WP/2006/1997
before the Industrial Court.
5. I find from the record, that the petitioner, which is an
industrial establishment, was duly served with Court notice in the
three complaints before the Industrial Court. It is observed in
paragraph No.3 of the judgment of the Industrial Court dated
14.10.1994 that the management appeared through an authority and
subsequently failed to file it's written statement and neither cross-
examined the workers nor led evidence. The issue before the
Industrial Court was with regard to the applicability of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Industrial Court came
to a conclusion that the original complainants are entitled for work
and wages in accordance with their service conditions.
6. The petitioner / management is aggrieved by the refusal of
the Industrial Court to review it's ex-parte judgment. It is settled
law that after the Labour or Industrial Court decides a complaint on
merits, there can be no review. So also, the proviso below Section
30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said Act "), only permits
an interim order to be reviewed.
7. This Court, in the matter of Dilip Vithalrao Jogdand Vs.
Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Beed [2007 (114) FLR 182],
WP/2006/1997
by placing reliance upon the order of the Appeal Bench in LPA No.3
of 2004 has concluded that, where a complaint has been dismissed in
default, after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the order, the
Industrial Court cannot entertain an application for restoration in the
light of there being no power to condone the delay.
8. Be that as it may, it appears from the impugned order dated
13.2.1997 that the petitioner herein did not put forth any proper
reason for having not participated in the three complaints, which
were filed in 1989 and which were decided on 14.10.1994, after
period of about five years. So also, the grievance of the petitioner
was considered by the Industrial Court, though it was dealing with
the Misc. Application for condonation of delay in an application for
review / recalling of it's judgment.
9. Learned Advocate prayed that if this petition is being disposed
off, liberty may be granted to challenge the judgment dated
14.10.1994 by filing a proper Writ Petition in this Court. Normally, if
a wrong proceeding is initiated, the time spent in such proceedings
are to be taken into account, while condoning delay. In the instant
case, however, I am not inclined to grant this liberty to the
petitioner for the reason that the three respondent / employees have
settled in employment considering the judgment of the Industrial
Court delivered 22 years ago. All of them are aged, considering the
WP/2006/1997
affidavit in reply filed by the employee in this petition, which
indicates that respondent 2 was 37 years in June 1997, respondent 3
was 53 years in June 1997 and respondent 4 was 37 years as in June
1997. Respondent No.3, therefore, must have retired by now and
respondents 2 and 4 must be about 56 years' old. It would be harsh
and impracticable to permit the petitioner to reverse the clock by 27
years and take the respondents back to their three complaints of
1989 to start a rehearing in the matter. Considering these
irreparable hardships and manifest inconvenience, I am not granting
any liberty to the petitioner to reopen the issue.
10. This petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
