Dismissed

M/S Nona Electrical Appliances Manufacturing Company and Anr. v. Sangeeta Bait

Bombay HC18 Mar 2014LPA/1/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three letters patent appeals were dismissed. The High Court held that the appellants were negligent and persistently neglected prosecuting Labour Court proceedings due to hospitalization and lack of awareness. Consequently, the Single Judge's order refusing interference with unexecuted awards was upheld.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Nona Electrical Appliances Manufacturing… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

lpa-1.14,323n324.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2014

¶5

M/s.Nona Electrical Appliances' Manufacturing Company and Another. .. Appellants Vs Smt. Sangeeta Bait. .. Respondent – WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2013 M/s. Rajesh Enterprises and Another. .. Appellants Vs Shri Ramruksh Yadav. .. Respondent – WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 324 OF 2013 M/s. Rajesh Enterprises and Another. .. Appellants Vs Smt.Maya Mhapsekar. .. Respondent

¶6

Shri S.N. Deshpande with Mrs. S.P. Munshi-Miss N.S. Deshpande for the Appellants in all the Appeals.

¶7

Shri Ravindra Nair along with Shri Rahul Dattatraya Oak for the Respondent in all the appeals.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATED : 18TH MARCH 2014

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER A.S. OKA, J )

¶10

Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 2014 takes an exception to

¶11

an order dated 18^th October 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge by

¶12

ash

¶13

2 lpa-1.14,323n324.13

¶14

which a Writ Petition No.5089 of 2011 filed by the Appellants was rejected. In Letters Patent Appeal No.323 of 2012, the challenge is to an order of the same date i.e. 18^th October 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge by which a Writ Petition No.6572 of 2011 was rejected. In Letters Patent Appeal No.324 of 2012, the challenge is to an order of the same date i.e. 18^th October 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No.6573 of 2011 filed by the Appellants was rejected.

¶15

As far as Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 2014 is concerned, the Appellants are first parties in a Reference made to the Labour Court at Thane. The first Appellant is the Proprietary concern of the second Appellant. By judgment and award dated 16^th January 1995, the learned Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement in favour of the Respondent with full backwages along with continuity in service. On 3^rd August 1995, an application was made by the Appellants for setting aside the judgment and award dated 16^th January 1995. On 29^th July 2002, the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution as the Appellants did not remain present. An application was made on 2^nd May 2005 by the Appellants for restoration of the application for restoration by setting aside the order dated 29^th July 2002. By order dated 28^th July 2010, the learned Judge of the First Labour Court at Thane dismissed the application.

¶16

3 lpa-1.14,323n324.13

¶17

ash

¶18

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants filed a Writ Petition No.5089 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18^th October 2011.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants invited our attention to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. He urged that the learned Single Judge has accepted the case made out by the Appellants that the second Appellant was hospitalized for a period from February 1994 to March 2001. He urged that the Appellants were not aware that the application for restoration was fixed on 29^th July 2002. He pointed out that according to the case of the Appellants, on 28^th January 2005, the second Appellant's brother-in-law received a notice from the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for implementation of the award. He urged that the second Appellant and her husband became aware of the award on 2^nd May 2005. Thereafter, they contacted their Advocate and an application for restoration was accordingly filed. He submitted that apart from the fact that the reasons for absence on 29^th July 2002 were established by the Appellants, a justice oriented approach ought to have been adopted as there is enough material to show that the judgment and award of the Labour Court is completely illegal and there could not have been an order of reinstatement with backwages. He, therefore, submits that by adopting a justice oriented approach, the application made by the

¶20

ash

¶21

4 lpa-1.14,323n324.13

¶22

Appellants for setting aside the order dated 29^th July 2002 ought to have been allowed.

¶23

We have carefully considered the submissions. We have perused the averments made by the Appellants in the application for restoration.

¶24

As stated earlier, the application for setting aside the ex parte award and for restoration of the Miscellaneous Application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29^th July 2002 when none appeared for the Appellants. We have perused the averments made in the Application No.17 of 2005 for restoration. In Paragraph 1 of the said application for restoration, it is stated that the second Appellant was bedridden and was also hospitalized and, therefore, she was depending upon her Advocate. It is stated that till her brother in law received a notice dated 28^th January 2005 from the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Court and therefore, he visited the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The second Appellant claimed that she was not even aware of the order dated 29^th July 2002 by which the application for restoration was dismissed. In Paragraph 3 of the application, it is alleged that the second Appellant became “a serious patient” and a victim of severe Osteoarthritis. She claimed that she was shifted to Agadi Hospital by her husband who is the second

¶25

ash

¶26

5 lpa-1.14,323n324.13

¶27

Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.323 of 2013. It is alleged that in the said hospital at Bangalore, the second Appellant took treatment upto the month of March 2001. It is stated that till that time, the husband of the second Appellant also remained with her at Bangalore.

¶28

It is pertinent to note that in Paragraph 3 of the application for restoration filed in the year 2005 and in other paragraphs there is no pleading that from the year 1994 till March 2001 that the second Appellant was hospitalized at Bangalore. It is not also explained as to why after March 2001 till the year 2005, the second Appellant did not inquire with her advocate about the fate of the application for restoration. In support of the Application for restoration, oral evidence was adduced before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. In Paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-lieu of the examination-in-chief, she has not pleaded anything about the period of hospitalization at Bangalore. She has merely stated that she has been given treatment in Agadi Hospital at Bangalore and she was bedridden.

¶29

As we have noted earlier, the application for restoration was filed in the year 2005. As far as the case of alleged hospitalization of the second Appellant is concerned, the learned Judge of the Labour Court, in Paragraph 10 of the judgment and award has observed thus:

ash

lpa-1.14,323n324.13

“10. For a while, it is presumed that the applicant was hospitalized for operating his both knees at Bangalore in the year 1994. If we perused the certificate issued by Dr. Bhagiratha, Orthopedic Surgeon, Bangalore dated 31.3.2005, it clearly shows that the applicant was under her treatment for osteoarthritis on both knees from February 1994 to March 2001. The another certificate filed by the applicant (Xerox) issued by Dr. Kaushal Malhn, WOKHARDT Hospital, dated 18.3.2005. It shows that applicant was admitted to the WOCKHARDT Hospital on 11.3.2005 for OA Bilatera; Knee Joint and she was advised for 4 to 6 months not to actively mobilized out of the house. Upon the perusal of these two medical certificates, it shows that she was not hospitalized for a continuous period from 1994 to 2005. It is to be noted that the applicant had taken the treatment at Bangalore till March 2001. Therefore, the applicant after coming to Thane could have consulted to her advocate and could have taken in the steps in the Misc. Application (IDA) No.13/95. However, the applicant failed to take proper steps and failed to pursue the matter even after coming to Thane.”

¶34

In paragraph 11 of his order, the learned Judge of the

¶35

Labour Court observed that the Appellants have not examined the Doctors who treated her in Bangalore and Mumbai.

¶36

At this stage, we must make a reference to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 18^th October 2011. In Paragraph 11.1, the learned Single Judge has not accepted the case made out by the Appellants regarding hospitalization of the second Appellant from February 1994 to March 2001.

¶37

ash

¶38

7 lpa-1.14,323n324.13

¶39

Therefore, it appears that at all stages, the Appellants were negligent or that there was a default on the part of the Appellants in prosecuting the proceedings. As a result of all this, the award dated 16^th January 1995 is not yet executed.

¶40

We, therefore, find that there was a persistent neglect on the part of the Appellants in prosecuting the proceedings. Hence, we cannot interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶41

As far as Letters Patent Appeal Nos.323 and 324 of 2013 is concerned, there is no difference in the fact situation except for the fact that the second Appellant therein happens to be the husband of the second Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 2014. His case appears to be that as his wife was taking treatment in Bangalore till March 2001, he could not make an application for restoration.

¶42

Thus, it is impossible to find fault with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, with a view to give one more opportunity to the Appellants, we asked the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants whether the Appellants were willing to deposit the amounts in terms of the award dated 16^th January 1995. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants states that the Appellants are unable to pay any amount.

ash

lpa-1.14,323n324.13

Considering the consistent conduct of the Appellants, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to go into the merits of the awards which were sought to be set aside.

¶47

We find no merit in the Appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.

M/S Nona Electrical Appliances Manufacturing Company and Anr. v. Sangeeta Bait

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Nona Electrical Appliances Manufacturing Company and Anr. v. Sangeeta Bait

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Devendrasinh Sadashiv Patil Vs Rupee Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Punjabrao Appa Bhagat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Irrgation Dept and Ors.

M/S. L. S. Mehetre Vs State of Maharashtra, through Pavna Lift Irrigation Sub Division and Ors.

Mr. Ramesh Pandurang Kute and Ors. Vs Mrs. Jayashree Suresh Dange

Mrunali Virendra Lonare Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Lt. Col. v. M. Karve Vs State of Maharashtra through Revenue and Forests Dept. and Ors.