Divisional Manager, Forest ... vs Laldas S/O Hari Badole
2017 Latest Caselaw 7415 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp4466.17

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.4466/2017

1.          Divisional Manager,
            Forest Development Corporation
            Limited, Forest Project Division, 
            Bhandara. 

2.          Range Forest Officer,
            Forest Development Corporation
            Limited, Forest Project Division, 
            Sonegaon, Tah. Sakoli, 
            Distt. Bhandara.                                                                                                                                   ..Petitioners.

                          ..Vs..

            Laldas S/o Hari Badole, 
            aged Major, Occu. Nil, 
            R/o Parsodi, Tah. Lakhni, 
            Distt. Bhandara.                                                                                                                         ..Respondent.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
            Shri M.M. Sudame, Advocate for the petitioners. 
            Shri R.S. Bhure, Advocate for the respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




                                                                 CORAM :  S.C. GUPTE, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     26.9.2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1.                        Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of learned counsel.

3. The writ petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court at

2 wp4466.17

Bhandara in a reference made to it under the Industrial Disputes Act. The

reference concerns dismissal of the respondent, who was a daily-rated

employee, working with the petitioners as a watchman. The respondent was

appointed as a watchman sometime in 1980. In 1994, he was caught

red-handed accepting bribe. A show cause notice was thereupon issued to him

on 28th February, 1994 calling for his reply. After considering his reply, by an

order of termination issued on 5 th March, 1994, he was terminated from the

service. The alleged act of bribery had also resulted in a criminal prosecution.

The respondent was, however, acquitted of the charge. That was on 6 th

October, 2004. Until then the order of termination was not challenged by the

respondent. In 2005, the respondent made a representation to the petitioners

for reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent challenged his

termination based on his acquittal in the criminal case. Since the

representation was not accepted, an approach notice was sent, whereupon the

dispute was referred by the Additional Commissioner of Labour for

adjudication to the Labour Court at Bhandara as Reference IDA No.5/2006.

The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhandara passed award dated 15 th

March, 2012 answering the reference in the negative, holding that the

reference was made after inordinate delay of over 11 years. The award was

challenged by the respondent before this Court by a writ petition, being Writ

Petition No.159/2013. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the

petition. The respondent thereupon preferred L.P.A. No.201/2013 before a

3 wp4466.17

Division Bench of this Court. The L.P.A. was dismissed. After dismissal of the

L.P.A., a civil application was preferred by the respondent for review of the

order passed in the L.P.A. This Court reviewed the order, set it aside and

restored the L.P.A. for a fresh hearing. On 14 th June, 2016, the L.P.A. was

disposed of by this Court by quashing and setting aside the award dated 15 th

March, 2012 of the Labour Court and remanding the reference to the Labour

Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, including consideration of

delay. By its impugned order dated 24 th January, 2017, the Labour Court

answered the reference in the affirmative, directing the Management to

reinstate the respondent in his former post with continuity of service and full

back wages from the date of his representation, i.e. from 12 th April, 2005. That

order is challenged in the writ petition.

4. If one has regard to the order passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in the L.P.A., the Division Bench clearly held that whether the dispute in

the present case had been raised within a reasonable time was to be tried as

one of the issues whilst adjudicating the reference on merits and keeping in

mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh

V/s. General Manager, Haryana Roadways Hissar reported in 2015(2)

Mh.L.J.107. Inspite of this specific direction, the Labour Court appears to have

skirted the consideration of the issue of delay, simply on the ground that in the

order passed on the miscellaneous civil application for review of its earlier

4 wp4466.17

dismissal order passed in the L.P.A., this Court had observed that prima facie

the respondent herein would get a cause of action in the year 2004 and that

this was a good ground for reviewing the judgment and order of dismissal

passed in the L.P.A. on 2nd August, 2013. The Labour Court observed that had

this order in review been brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this

Court when it finally decided the L.P.A., this issue would not have been kept

open by the Division Bench, since it was already answered by it earlier in the

review application. The reasoning is, to say the least, preposterous. After

considering the prima facie merits of the respondent's contention that he gets a

cause of action to file a reference only in the year 2004 after he was acquitted

of the criminal charges arising out of the same misconduct, which, in the first

place, brought about his termination, the Division Bench thought it fit to

consider the original L.P.A. by setting aside its earlier dismissal order. This

cannot possibly mean that the Division Bench had accepted the respondent's

case of want of delay. It merely meant that the matter merited a consideration

and accordingly, the review application was allowed and the L.P.A. was taken

up for hearing by the Division Bench. At the final hearing of the L.P.A., the

Division Bench remanded the matter to the Labour Court with an express

direction to consider the matter of delay as one of the issues whilst deciding the

reference. In the face of such specific direction, the Labour Court could not

have brushed aside the consideration of the issue of delay presumably by

delving into the mind of the Division Bench by trying to fathom what the

5 wp4466.17

Division Bench would have held had its earlier order on the review application

been pointed out to it.

5. The impugned award of the Labour Court discloses a gross illegality

and a perverse approach. The impugned award is, accordingly, quashed and

set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in

accordance with law.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.