Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) Undertaking, challenged the judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 of the Industrial Court and the order dated 04.10.2021 of the Labour Court, which allowed the application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 11 months filed by the Respondent workers. The Respondent Nos.2 to 8 were appointed as casual workers between 2006 and 2010 and were orally terminated on 20.03.2015. They approached the Bombay Electric Workers Union, which wrote to the Petitioner on 21.04.2015, but received no reply. On 30.07.2015, the workers themselves sent a letter requesting reinstatement, which also went unanswered. On 01.01.2021, Respondent No.1 (a union) filed a complaint under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Labour Court allowed the condonation, and the Industrial Court dismissed the Petitioner's revision. The High Court held that the workers had sufficiently explained the delay by showing they were pursuing remedies through the union and letters, and that the employer had not replied. The Court noted that no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner, as the workers were casual workers and no evidence of prejudice was shown. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no perversity in the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Delay of 5 years and 11 months in filing complaint under Schedule IV - Workers were pursuing remedy through union and letters, and employer did not reply - Held that the explanation for delay constitutes sufficient cause, and no prejudice caused to employer as workers were casual workers and no evidence of prejudice shown (Paras 3-8).
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - High Court will not interfere with condonation of delay unless order is perverse or without jurisdiction - Held that the impugned orders are not perverse and do not warrant interference (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in condoning a delay of 5 years and 11 months in filing a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court condoning the delay are upheld.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach in industrial matters
- Prejudice to opposite party
- Limitation for unfair labour practice complaint
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 119
WRIT PETITION NO. 8045 OF 2023
Mr. Arsh Misra for Petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Pathak a/w. Jay Vora for Respondents
Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport through its General Manager
BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana through Parivartan and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders condoning delay in filing complaint under MRTU & PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the orders condoning delay and dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the condonation of delay of 5 years and 11 months in filing the complaint by the workers.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court allowed condonation on 04.10.2021; Industrial Court dismissed revision on 25.01.2023.
Issues
Whether the delay of 5 years and 11 months in filing the complaint was sufficiently explained.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the discretionary order of condonation of delay.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the delay was inordinate and not properly explained.
Respondents argued that they were pursuing remedies through union and letters, and no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
In industrial matters, a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delay if sufficient cause is shown and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The High Court will not interfere with such discretionary orders under Articles 226 and 227 unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present Writ Petition filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the learned Industrial Court in Revision Application No.69 of 2022 and order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Labour Court while deciding and allowing Application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 11 months in favour of the Respondents.
The explanation for delay constitutes sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner.
Procedural History
Respondent Nos.2 to 8 were terminated on 20.03.2015. They approached union on 21.04.2015 and sent letter on 30.07.2015. On 01.01.2021, complaint filed with condonation application. Labour Court allowed condonation on 04.10.2021. Petitioner filed Revision Application No.69 of 2022, dismissed on 25.01.2023. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.8045 of 2023, dismissed on 25.09.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Section 28
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
