Bombay High Court
Kisana S/O Sukhdeo Kumre vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 25 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 wp4138.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4138 OF 2017
Kisana s/o Sukhdeo Kumre,
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Near Jagat Mandir, Yavatmal. ...PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1) Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its Divisional Controller,
Arni Road, Yavatmal.
2) Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its Divisional Traffic
Superintendent, Arni Road, Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms B. Reddy, holding for Mr. V.H. Kedar, Advocate for respondent
nos. 1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JANUARY 25, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel for petitioner and
Ms Reddy, learned counsel holding for Mr. Kedar, learned counsel
for respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 20:01:45 :::
2 wp4138.17.odt
3. The cause for filing this writ petition is that application
filed on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing
application for restoration of the revision is rejected.
4. The petitioner is a Conductor. He was served with a
show cause notice for termination. That was challenged by filing
Complaint ULP No.1/2013. In that, an application for interim
relief was moved and the learned Judge, Labour Court, Yavatmal,
vide order dated 10.11.2016, rejected the application for interim
relief. Against that the petitioner filed revision before the learned
Industrial Court, Yavatmal, which was registered as Revision
No.ULPA 34/2016. During the pendency, the said revision was
placed before the National Lok Adalat. The National Lok Adalat,
passed an order that since there is a compromise between the
petitioner and the employer, the revision was allowed to be
withdrawn. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner
that the said compromise was not signed by the department or
any of the authorised person. In that view of the matter, an
application for restoration of the said revision was filed. Since, it
was barred by limitation, an application for condonation of delay
was also filed. The said is rejected.
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 20:01:45 :::
3 wp4138.17.odt
5. Before this Court, it is stated that Complaint ULP
No.1/2013 filed on behalf of petitioner is still pending before the
Labour Court, Yavatmal. Hence in my view, justice can be
achieved by passing the following order.
ORDER
Complaint ULPA No.1/2013, which is filed by
petitioner against respondents, if it is still pending on the
file of Labour Court, Yavatmal, the Labour Court,
Yavatmal shall decide the same within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of this order by giving
an opportunity of hearing to both; petitioner as well as
respondents.
Needless to mention, till the decision of the
main complaint, order of status granted by this Court on
07.07.2017 shall remain in operation.
Writ petition is disposed of with no order as
to costs. Rule accordingly.
JUDGE
kahale
