Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award on termination, solely on the grounds of inordinate delay in filing the petition without acceptable justification.
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-wp-9653-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9653 OF 2011
Suresh B. Pande .. Petitioner. V/s. M/s. TATA Motors Co. Ltd. .. Respondent.
Mr. Nilesh S. Nevshe, for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Bapat with Mr. Hemant Telkar i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co., for he Respondent.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
P.C:
Heard finally at admission stage.
The Petitioner is challenging the impugned Award dated 16th October, 2004 passed by the II Labour Court, Pune by filing present Petition dated 19th October, 2011.
2 Admittedly, Petitioner was terminated on 19th December, 1997. As alleged, it was without enquiry and was a simple termination. The Petitioner persuaded various remedies including reconciliation up to 2000. On 27th July, 2001, the matter was referred to Presiding Officer, II
Labour Court, Pune for reinstatement and back wages. Thereafter, Application was filed on 15th July, 2005 to set aside the award through
1 of 4
S.R.JOSHI
1-wp-9653-2011
Misc. Application (IDA) No.1 of 2005 before the Presiding Officer, II Labour Court, Pune. Same was also rejected. The Petitioner, as alleged, filed Complaint Reference (ULP) No.193 of 2006 which was also dismissed on 25th January, 2008. The case of the Petitioner was that he was depressed and mentally upset and could not get opportunity to have a correct legal opinion. The reasons for delay in filing the present Petition, in my view, is unacceptable. No case is made out by the Petitioner to consider his case on a foundation of sufficient reason to interfere with the present Petition after so many years as recorded above. It is also relevant to note that in paragraph 1 of the Petition, Dy. Registrar of this Court vide letter dated 31st May, 2006 has advised the Petitioner to seek relief from appropriate forum. The Petitioner in spite of this, was unable to move and/or to take any steps, though the order was passed against him on 16th October, 2004. The filing of the complaint so referred above, cannot be a reason not to challenge the basic order which was against him.
3 The learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of Ajaib Singh v/s. Sirhind Coop. MarketingcumProcessing Service Society Ltd. reported in 1999 I CLR 1068 (S.C.) and pointed out that in the matter like this, mere reasons for delay should not be accepted.
4 This Court is concerned with the case where the Labour Court overlooked the Petitioner and in spite of rejection of the complaint in the
2 of 4
S.R.JOSHI
1-wp-9653-2011
year 2008, the Petitioner could not take steps to challenge the same. The challenge now so raised in the year 2011, in the facts and circumstances cannot be entertained in view of the delay itself.
5 The learned Counsel also cited various Judgments. He states that employee is terminated without holding enquiry. The order ought to be interfered by the Court. The Judgment so cited are of no assistance basically in view of the fact that this Court is not dealing with the merits of the matter. The concerned Authority/Court after giving full opportunity to the parties, has passed the reasoned order in the year 2005. The delay, which goes to the route of the matter, as there are no sufficient acceptable reasons placed on record, I am dismissing the Petition on the ground of delay.
6 Writ Petition is dismissed solely on the ground of delay only.
No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)
3 of 4
S.R.JOSHI
1-wp-9653-2011
4 of 4
S.R.JOSHI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Labour Court award can be entertained after a delay of over six years without sufficient reasons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajaib Singh v/s. Sirhind Co-op. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd.Referred¶17
1999 I CLR 1068 (S.C.)
Suresh B. Pande
M/s. Tata Motors Co. Ltd.
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
