Allowed¶29

Gulabrao Rangnath Kharat v. the Regional Manager and Others

Bombay HC4 Sept 2024WP/2415/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gulabrao Rangnath Kharat v. The Regional Manager and Others, WP 2415 of 2023 (neutral ref. 2024:BHC-AUG:20807), Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, Arun R. Pedneker J., 04.09.2024. Restoration of complaint ULP dismissed in default; limitation period of 30 days under section 31(2), MRTU & PULP Act 1971; condonation of delay; hyper technical view; poor employees, arrears of pay and back wages; Industrial Court Jalna; complaint restored; Tribunal directed to decide within one year.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Industrial Court quashed and set aside; Complaint (ULP) restored by condoning the delay, if any, in filing the restoration application; Tribunal directed to decide the complaint in accordance with law within one year from the date of production of the order. ¶29

Gulabrao Rangnath Kharat Vs the Regional Manager and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the restoration application filed with a delay of more than 30 days under section 31(2) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, without a condonation-of-delay application, could be entertained, and whether the delay ought to be condoned for a complainant seeking arrears of pay and allowances of a small amount.

¶12

Court's answer

In a restoration application where the cause is made out by an applicant/claimant who filed a complaint ULP for back wages of a meager amount, a liberal approach needs to be taken while dealing with such application.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Industrial Court ought not to take a hyper technical view in matters of poor employees seeking arrears of pay and allowances and back wages of small amount.

¶26

Key takeaways

In the interest of justice, the restoration application needs to be allowed by condoning the delay, if any, caused in filing such application.ratio¶26
The impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside, and the Complaint (ULP) is restored by condoning the delay, if any, in filing the restoration application.ratio¶26
The Tribunal is directed to decide the restored Complaint (ULP) in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition allowed: the refusal by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalna (order dated 4.10.2018 in Misc. (ULP) Restoration No. 9/2018 in Complaint ULP No. 141/2016) to restore a complaint ULP dismissed in default on 10.11.2017 is quashed and set aside. Although the restoration application fell beyond the 30-day limitation of section 31(2), M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, and no condonation-of-delay application had been moved, the Court held that a liberal approach is required where the cause is made out by a claimant seeking back wages of a meager amount, and that a hyper technical view ought not be taken against poor employees seeking arrears of pay and allowances of small amounts. Delay, if any, condoned; complaint restored; Tribunal directed to dispose of it in accordance with law within one year from production of the order (Arun R. Pedneker, J., September 04, 2024).

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:20807

¶2

WP 2415/23

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

975 WRIT PETITION NO. 2415 OF 2023

¶6

GULABRAO RANGNATH KHARAT VERSUS

¶7

THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. R.C. Bora h/f. Mr. Kadu Shivraj B. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. K.N. Lokhande Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. V.R. Dhorde Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. P.A. Bhosle

¶9

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : September 04, 2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The present writ petition challenges the orders dated 4.10.2018 passed by the Member, Industrial Court Jalna in Misc. (ULP) Restoration No. 9/2018 in Complaint ULP No. 141/2016, (in WP No. 2415/2023), refusing to restore the Complaint ULP filed by the applicant/complainant by holding that there is delay of more than 30 days in filing the restoration application and it has not been sufficiently explained.

¶13

Facts leading in the complaint ULP are briefly stated as under :-

¶14

The complaint ULP under section 28 (1) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971) is filed by the applicant/complainant, alleging unfair labour practice as per items 9 and 10 of Schedule -IV of the Act against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in respect of non payment of arrears of pay and

¶15

WP 2415/23

¶16

¶17

allowances for the services rendered to the respondent No. 2. When the said complaint reached to the stage of adducing evidence, they were dismissed in default on 10.11.2017, for absence of the complainants. It was the contention of the applicant that due to weak economic condition, the applicant was unable to attend the Court and as per the chart given below, the restoration application was filed within time.

¶18

Writ Petition Nos.	Petitioners became aware of dismissal	Certified copy applied on	Certified copy received on	Restoration application
2415/2023	5.12.2017	16.2.2018	16.2.2018	23.2.2018

¶19

The impugned order is placed on record in which above facts are stated at para 3 of each order. It is contended in the application that the restoration application is filed within thirty days, however, the certified copies are not diligently obtained and thus, the Industrial Court refused restore the complaint (ULP).

¶20

The Industrial Court, on consideration of the application, has observed that the application for restoration has to be filed within 30 days and at para 16 of the orders, observed as under :-

¶21

“(16) In the present case, if the time period from the date of order of dismissal, to the date of application for certified copy, and thereafter, date of receipt of certified copy till date of filing application for restoration of complaint is computed, then, even after excluding the time period required for receiving certified copy, the present application for restoration, clearly falls beyond limitation period of 30 days.”

¶22

The Industrial Court further observed that the Labour or Industrial

¶23

WP 2415/23

¶24

¶25

Court has no powers to entertain an application for restoration beyond the period of 30 days. The Industrial Court also notices that there is no application for condonation of delay moved by the applicant/complainant and the applicant has come with a premise that his application for condonation of delay is filed within limitation. Thus, in absence of the application for condonation of delay with restoration application, the application for restoration falls beyond the limitation period of 30 days prescribed under section 31(2) of the Act and has rejected the application by the impugned order.

¶26

It has to be understood that in the restoration application when the cause is made out by the applicant/claimant, who filed complaint ULP for backwages for meager amount, liberal approach needs to be taken while dealing with such application. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant/complainant learnt about the dismissal of the Complaint ULP on the dates mentioned in the above chart at para 3 and thereafter the applicant applied for certified copy and upon receipt of the certified copy filed the application for restoration as mentioned in above chart. The Industrial Court ought not to have take hyper technical view in the matters of poor employees seeking arrears of pay and allowances and backwages of small amount. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I hold that the restoration application needs to be allowed by condoning the delay, if any, caused in filing such application. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside and the Complaint (ULP) is restored by condoning the delay, if any, in filing the restoration application. The Tribunal is directed to decide the said complaint (ULP) in accordance

¶27

WP 2415/23

¶28

¶29

with law, as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from the date of production of this order. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶30

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶31

ssc/

Gulabrao Rangnath Kharat v. the Regional Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulabrao Rangnath Kharat v. the Regional Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdishchandra Ramesh Valvi Vs Latabai Chandrakant Sonawane and Others

Jagdishchandra Ramesh Valvi Vs Latabai Chandraknt Sonawane Alias Latabai Maharu Koli and Ors.

Dipali Alias Deepmala Alias Deepa Pradip Kajale and Others Vs District Collector Jalna and Another

Union of India Thr. Ministry of Communication and Information Technology Department of Posts vs Mr. Deepak Vithoba Belnekar

Ashok Kumar Narayandas Tharani Vs Mutha Sales Corporation

Bhudbhushan Sahebrao Gajbhare and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another