Bombay High Court Upholds Labour Court's Condonation of Delay in ULP Complaint; Industrial Court's Reversal Quashed. Delay Caused by Bona Fide Pursuit of Civil Suit Under Mistaken Belief of Non-Employee Status Constitutes Sufficient Cause Under MRTU and PULP Act.

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Industrial Court's order reversing the Labour Court's condonation of delay in a complaint alleging unfair labour practice.

Petitioner sought quashing of the Industrial Court order dated 10.02.2023, confirmation of the Labour Court order dated 27.06.2018 condoning delay, and direction for expeditious adjudication of the underlying complaint.

The petitioner's complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act was filed with a delay of 6 years and 4 months; the Labour Court condoned the delay, but the Industrial Court reversed that order, leaving the petitioner without remedy.

2nd Labour Court, Thane allowed condonation of delay on 27.06.2018; Industrial Court, Thane reversed and rejected condonation on 10.02.2023; Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court order and confirmed the Labour Court order.

Whether the Industrial Court erred in reversing the Labour Court's order condoning delay when the delay was caused by bona fide prosecution of a civil suit under mistaken belief about employee status and by the liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum. Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 6 years and 4 months under MRTU and PULP Act.

Petitioner argued that he had bona fide believed he was not an employee due to being Branch Manager and had pursued the civil suit; the delay was caused by the respondent's revision and the High Court's liberty to approach appropriate forum. Petitioner argued that the Labour Court correctly appreciated sufficient cause and that the Industrial Court's reversal was rigid and would extinguish his remedy. Respondent bank argued that it had a strong case on merits, with prior complaints, warnings, and blood test showing alcohol, and that the petitioner had approached wrong forums deliberately. Respondent bank argued that the delay was deliberate and inordinate and that the impugned Industrial Court order was reasoned and should be upheld.

Time spent by a party in bona fide prosecution of a civil suit under a mistaken belief about non-employee status and the liberty granted by the superior court to approach the appropriate forum constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the MRTU and PULP Act. A delay cannot be treated as deliberate or inordinate when the party was not lethargic and had pursued the case, albeit in a wrong forum. Labour legislation should be liberally construed in favour of the workman.

the delay was adequately explained by the Petitioner. It therefore cannot be called as inordinate or deliberate at all. It was held that in such a case Labour Legislation is required to be liberally construed towards the workman and hence the delay was condoned. Delay stands condoned.

Petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.03.2012; he filed Civil Suit on 22.04.2013; Civil Judge passed order on 04.10.2013 holding civil court had jurisdiction; Bank filed Civil Revision Application No.891 of 2013; High Court by order 06.07.2015 allowed revision and permitted withdrawal of civil suit with liberty to approach appropriate forum; petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.161 of 2018 and Condonation of Delay (ULP) No.07 of 2017; Labour Court allowed condonation on 27.06.2018; Industrial Court reversed on 10.02.2023; High Court quashed Industrial Court order and allowed writ petition.

• Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
• Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Section 44, Section 60, Schedule IV Items 1(a)(b)(d)(f) and 10
• Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Section 3(13)
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: