In this appeal against a dismissal of a writ petition, the court examined the Industrial Court's order condoning delay. Finding no merit in the opponents' argument that the lack of recorded reasons warranted interference, the dismissal was upheld.
Appeal dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 867 of 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2650 OF 2006
M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd. ....... Appellant.
Versus
Industrial Perfumes Workers’
Union and others... .. .... Respondents.
Mr. P.K.Rele, Senior Counsel with Mr. R.N.Shah
i/by M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the Appellant.
Mr. Kiran Bapat with Mr. Bennet D’Costa
for the Respondents.
CORAM : R. M. LODHA, and
S. A. BOBDE, JJ.
DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2006.
P.C.:
We heard Mr. P. K. Rele, Senior Counsel, for
the appellant.
2. The Industrial Court by its order dated 29th
August, 2006 allowed the application for condonation
of delay in filing complaint by the respondents. The
said order was challenged by the appellant in extra
-: 2 :-
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The learned
Single Judge found no merit in the writ petition and
dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present
appeal has been preferred.
3. Mr. P. K. Rele, Senior Counsel, urged that the
impugned order condoning the delay in filing the
complaint does not record any reason justifying the
condonation of delay.
4. In the application for condonation of delay, the
respondents herein, set out the cause that the
complainant no.2 was paid gratuity by the appellant on
16th March, 2004 and being retired person he was not
in a position to run around for filing a complaint, he
kept on requesting the present appellant to settle his
dues and also addressed a letter on 26th July 2004 for
that purpose but that was not acceded to. Then with
the help of the Union, the present complaint was
filed. The afore stated reason found favour with the
Industrial Court in the light of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag and another v/s Mst. Katiji and
Others, 1987 (II) CLR 92. In our considered view, the
consideration of the application for condonation of
-: 3 :-
delay by the Industrial Court cannot be said to suffer
from any legal flow justifying interference in extra
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The learned
Single Judge, accordingly, cannot be said to have
erred in rejecting the petition. No case for
interference is made out.
5. Appeal is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
(R. M. LODHA, J.)
Sd/-
(S. A. BOBDE, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere with the Industrial Court's order condoning delay when no legal flaw is evident.
Whether the lack of recorded reasons for condoning delay by the Industrial Court warrants interference in this appeal.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any legal flaw justifying interference in extraordinary jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v/s Mst. Katiji and OthersReferred¶20
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v/s Mst. Katiji and Others, 1987 (II) CLR 92
M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Industrial Perfumes Workers' Union and others
R. M. LODHA
S. A. BOBDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court