Dismissed

Chandrakant Parshuram Gaikwad v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited

Bombay HC13 Jun 2011WP/3282/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay to set aside an ex-parte award. The court held that the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications filed beyond 30 days from the award's publication, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Chandrakant Parshuram Gaikwad Vs Tata Engineering and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

13 wp 3282.11.doc

srk

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3282 OF 2011

¶6

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Ms. Sangita Deo h/f Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for Petitioner. Mr.K.S.Bapat with Mr. Hemant Telkar for Haresh Mehta and Co. for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : K.K.TATED,J. DATE : 13/06/2011

¶9

PC:

¶10

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2 Rule made returnable

¶12

immediately. By consent of the parties, matter is taken for final hearing.

¶13

3 By this Petition under Articles

¶14

226 and 227 of the Constitution of

¶15

13 wp 3282.11.doc

¶16

¶17

India, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 20^th November, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Pune in Misc. Application (IDA) No.92 of 2006 dismissing the Petitioner’s application for condonation of 31 days delay for setting aside the award which was passed ex-parte on 1^st July, 2005. 4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that because of ill health and as the Petitioner lost the envelop containing notice of Labur Court, he failed to file an application for setting aside the ex-parte order within 30 days. She further submits that the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the

¶18

13 wp 3282.11.doc

¶19

Petitioner had to explain day to day delay for condonation of delay for setting aside the ex-parte order.

¶20

5 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the Labour Court has no power to condone the delay, if the application is filed after 30 days from the date of publication of the award. He submits that in the present case, award passed on 15^th July, 2005 and the same was published on 15^th July, 2006. The Petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex-parte award on 16^th September, 2006 i.e. beyond 30 days. He further submits that the petitioner admitted in his pleading before this court that they received the copy of the award in the month of July, 2006. Therefore,

¶21

13 wp 3282.11.doc

¶22

admittedly, the petitioner filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order beyond the period of limitation i.e. 30 days. Therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s application for setting aside the exparte award. In support of his submission he relied on judgments in the matter of Sangham Tape Co. vs. Hans Raj reported in (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 331 and Jammu Tehsil vs. Hakumar Singh and Others reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 193 . In both these cases, the Apex Court held that the Labour Court can set aside ex-parte award provided the application is preferred within 30 days from the

¶23

13 wp 3282.11.doc

¶24

¶25

date of publication of the award. Upon expiry of the said 30 days, the award having become enforceable, the Labour Court/Tribunal becomes functus officio. In this case, as the application for setting aside the award has been filed, beyond 30 days from the date of publication of the award, it could not be entertained by the Labour Court. 6 Hence, there is no substance in the petition. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

(K.K.TATED,J.)

Chandrakant Parshuram Gaikwad v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Parshuram Gaikwad v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaurao Shankar Gavale Vs the President - Bahiramdeo Education Society and Ors.

Smt. Bharati P. Kapadia Vs the Secretary,Andheri Girls' Education Soc. and Ors.

The Commissioner and Ors. Vs Nathu Ganpat Phadol and Anr.

Indian Chronicles Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Alka P. Patankar (Decd.) -by Lrs - Dilip Purshottam Patankar and Anr. Vs the Secretary - Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Boehringer Mannheim India Limited Vs Shri. P.S. Ghose, Member, Industrial Court and Another