Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a former Branch Manager of a cooperative bank, was dismissed from service on 2 March 2012 on the ground of consuming alcohol while on duty. He challenged the dismissal before the Civil Court at Jawhar on 22 April 2013, believing that as a Branch Manager he was not a workman under labour laws. The Civil Court initially ruled in his favour on jurisdiction, but the bank filed a Civil Revision Application in the High Court. By order dated 6 July 2015, the High Court allowed the revision and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the civil suit with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 161 of 2018 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, along with an application for condonation of delay of 6 years and 4 months. The 2nd Labour Court, Thane, by order dated 27 June 2018, condoned the delay, finding that the petitioner had approached the Labour Court on 6 April 2017 and that the delay was not deliberate, as he had pursued his case in a wrong forum. The bank challenged this order in Revision Application (ULP) No. 23 of 2021 before the Industrial Court, Thane, which reversed the Labour Court's decision by order dated 10 February 2023, holding that the delay was deliberate and inordinate. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the petitioner had clearly explained the delay by placing adequate material on record showing his bona fide prosecution before the Civil Court. The Court noted that the bank itself had approached the High Court in revision, and the High Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The Court found that the Industrial Court had failed to appreciate these facts and had taken a rigid stand. The High Court held that the delay was not inordinate or deliberate and that labour legislation must be liberally construed towards the workman. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the Industrial Court's order was quashed and set aside, and the Labour Court's order condoning delay was confirmed. The Court directed that the main ULP complaint be adjudicated expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the judgment. The decision primarily favoured the petitioner-employee.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28 and Schedule IV - Employee dismissed from service without enquiry approached Civil Court under bona fide belief that as Branch Manager he was not a workman; after High Court permitted withdrawal with liberty, employee filed ULP complaint with delay of 6 years 4 months - Labour Court condoned delay finding it not deliberate; Industrial Court reversed - High Court held that delay was adequately explained and cannot be called inordinate or deliberate; labour legislation to be liberally construed towards workman - Held that condonation of delay was justified (Paras 9-11). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Court reversed Labour Court order condoning delay in ULP complaint, ignoring material facts that employee had bona fide prosecuted remedy in wrong forum and was granted liberty by High Court - High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction and found impugned order suffered from non-application of mind - Held that impugned order quashed and set aside, Labour Court order confirmed (Paras 10-11). C) Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Workman/Employee Definition - Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Section 3(13); Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 60 - Civil Court initially held employee not a workman, but Bank contended employee was covered under Section 3(13) of MIR Act and Section 60 of MRTU and PULP Act ousted civil court jurisdiction - Employee subsequently withdrew civil suit with liberty to approach appropriate forum - Held that time spent in civil proceedings due to jurisdictional uncertainty was not fatal to delay condonation (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in reversing the Labour Court's order condoning delay under Section 28 of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971; whether the delay of 6 years and 4 months in filing ULP complaint was sufficiently explained by bona fide prosecution before the Civil Court and subsequent liberty
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed and disposed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No. 23 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Thane in Condonation of Delay (ULP) No. 07 of 2017 is confirmed and upheld. Delay stands condoned. Adjudication of Complaint (ULP) No. 161 of 2018 is expedited and directed to be decided preferably within a period of six months from 18.12.2023 strictly in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Delay can be condoned if party acted bona fide in wrong forum
- labour legislation to be liberally construed
- writ court can interfere if lower court ignores material facts
