Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two writ petitions arising from an order of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision ULP No.70/2015. The petitioner in WP 12708/2018, Vasant Kisanrao Deshpande, a retired employee, filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and its successor, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. The High Court examined the facts and found that the alleged unfair labour practice was continuing, and the complaint was filed within 90 days from the date of the last alleged act. The court held that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay and set aside the order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Limitation - Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation, but the High Court held that the cause of action was continuing as the unfair labour practice persisted - The complaint was filed within 90 days from the date of the last alleged unfair labour practice - Held that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay without considering that the cause of action was continuing and that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both writ petitions, set aside the order of the Industrial Court dated 9th June, 2015, and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Limitation period for filing complaint under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Continuing cause of action
- Unfair labour practice
- Delay and laches
- Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 20
Writ Petition No.12708 of 2018 and Writ Petition No.5514 of 2018
Mr. Kawre B.R. for petitioner in WP 12708/2018; Mr. D.P. Palodkar for respondent No.2 in WP 12708/2018 and for petitioner in WP 5514/2018
Vasant Kisanrao Deshpande
Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint of unfair labour practice on the ground of limitation.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the Industrial Court's order and restoration of the complaint for adjudication on merits.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation, whereas the petitioner contended that the cause of action was continuing and the complaint was within limitation.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision ULP No.70/2015 decided on 9th June, 2015, dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay without considering the continuing cause of action.
Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the unfair labour practice was continuing and the complaint was filed within 90 days from the date of the last alleged act.
The respondents argued that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi
The cause of action in a complaint of unfair labour practice is continuing as long as the unfair labour practice persists, and the limitation period under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, runs from the date of the last alleged unfair labour practice.
Judgment Excerpts
Since order passed by the Industrial Court Aurangabad in Revision ULP No.70/2015 decided on 9th June, 2015 is under challenge in both the petitions, both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
The Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay without considering that the cause of action was continuing.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Industrial Court, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28
