Writ petition challenging rejection of condonation of delay by Industrial Court, which upheld punishment of withholding increments. High Court found no perversity and dismissed petition.
Application for condonation of delay remained rejected; punishment upheld.
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 03-WP2350-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2350 OF 2024
(PRADIP RAMKRISHNA AWAZE...VS.. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. NAGPUR)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
CORAM : A NIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : APRIL 18, 2024.
“i) After receipt of punishment order, Complainant was in dilemma about whether to prefer departmental appeal or to challenge it before the Court. However, this dilemma continued for quite a long time.
ii) The complainant was suffering from financial crisis. The corona crisis and subsequent State Leval Strike of S.T. employees have also added to the financial agony of the Complainant.”
2 03-WP2350-2024
“06. The first reason quoted by the applicant is that he was in dilemma whether to challenge the order dated 31/01/2018 before the departmental authorities or before the Court. Said dilemma according to him continued for quite a longer period. This on its face appears to be a made up cause. It is absolutely difficult to believe that the applicant even after having suffered the order would be in dilemma for almost 5 years only to decide on the forum to challenge the said order. This is also clear from the fact that he conveniently avoided to clarify when and how that dilemma was over. It is also not clear under what circumstances and when he decided to move the Court and give up availing the other remedy. For want of such details and the delay being inordinate this first reason is neither convincing nor is well founded. 07. The second reason he gave is that he was under financial crises, thereafter there was corona outbreak and then there was the strike of the S.T. employees added to his financial agony and, therefore, he could not file the complaint within time. This reason too appears purely opportunistic than realistic and has no substance. This is for the reason that the applicant remained in the employment right from the date of passing of the order till filing of the complaint. It is not his case that he was not getting any salary throughout that period. Therefore, it is difficult to accept his claim that he was under any financial crises. The corona outbreak surfaced much later that is more than 2 years after passing of the order in question. The strike by the S.T. employees was also over long before filing of the complaint. The applicant has been quite vague in stating that he had financial
3 03-WP2350-2024
crises and did not take any pain to explain how the crises was over only around the time of filing of the complaint. Thus, sans the material in support his claim of financial crises is not acceptable.
JUDGE
RRaut..
2 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of condonation of delay application by Industrial Court was perverse or erroneous.
Whether petitioner has shown cause sufficient to condone delay in filing complaint.
Pradip Ramkrishna Awaze
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. Nagpur
A NIL S. KILOR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
