Writ petition challenging an impugned order of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Labour Court, Mahad, which condoned a delay in filing a compensation application under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Rejected the Petition challenging the Labour Court's order passing on delay.
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.
24 wp 2681.20.doc
Urmila Ingale
Digitally Urmila signed byUrmila P. P. IngleDate: Ingle 2021.03.2419:48:41 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2681 OF 2020
M/s.Rafat Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner Vs. Shri Raju Pancham Sharma and anr. ….. Respondents
Mr.Jaiprakash Sawant i/b Ms.Ranjana Todankar, for the Petitioner.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 24th MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 10/01/2020 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Judge Labour Court, Mahad, Dist. Raigad condoning the delay of 2 years, 4 months and 30 days caused in fling the application under section 4 read with section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the said Act'). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Labour Court has virtually not assigned any reason while condoning the delay. According to him, it ought to have considered that the delay
1/3
24 wp 2681.20.doc
caused in fling the application has to be reasonably and sufciently explained. The application made by the Respondent No.1 - employee for condonation is devoid of any explanation much less satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay. He further submits that the Petitioner is disputing that the Respondent No.1 is their employee and therefore authority should have frst decided the question of employer and employee relationship before deciding the condonation of delay application.
2/3
24 wp 2681.20.doc
Petitioner asked him to wait and assured for positive action which contention remained unchallenged. The Labour Court found that the conduct of the Respondent No.1 - employee to wait on the assurance of the Petitioner to be probable and bonafde. The Labour Court was of the opinion that delay caused appeared to be bonafde. Considering that the application is made for compensation under the said Act, the order passed by the Labour Court condoning the delay of 2 years, 4 months and 30 days for the reasons mentioned in the order cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference. The Petition is therefore rejected.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.)
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference under Article 226 is warranted when the Labour Court condones delay in filing a compensation application, relying on Supreme Court principles regarding bona fide conduct.
Whether the Labour Court should have decided the disputed employer-employee relationship before deciding the application for condonation of delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar AcademyReferred¶16
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649. · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Rafat Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Shri Raju Pancham Sharma
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
