Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pedru Mozes Fernandes, was a permanent workman employed as a boiler serviceman at Tata Mills from 1st March 1973. He worked continuously until 18th January 1982, when a general strike occurred in the Cotton Textile Industry. After the strike, the petitioner reported for duty daily but was not allowed to work. He alleged that the mill, in collusion with the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), selectively took back workers. The petitioner claimed his services were never terminated and the employer-employee relationship continued. The mill was later taken over by the Central Government on 18th October 1983 and eventually by the National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Ltd. The petitioner filed an approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which was dismissed by the Industrial Court as barred by limitation. The Labour Court had earlier ordered reinstatement with backwages, but the Industrial Court set aside that order. The petitioner challenged the Industrial Court's order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the facts and found that the Industrial Court correctly held that the approach notice was not filed within the stipulated period and that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Limitation - Approach Notice - Section 42(4) Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - The Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and backwages on the ground that the approach notice was filed beyond the period stipulated in Section 42(4) of the Act. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that the delay was not sufficiently explained and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 1-6)
B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - The Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with backwages, but the Industrial Court reversed it on limitation grounds. The High Court found no error in the Industrial Court's decision. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and backwages on the ground that the approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the approach notice was barred by limitation and that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.
Law Points
- Limitation for approach notice under Section 42(4) of Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- 1946
- Sufficient cause for condonation of delay
- Reinstatement and backwages
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 222
WRIT PETITION NO.1517 OF 2002
Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the Petitioner, Mr. Shailesh More with Mr. S.M. Naik for the Respondent
National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Industrial Court setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and backwages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order and restore the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and backwages.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act was dismissed as barred by limitation by the Industrial Court.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with backwages, which was set aside by the Industrial Court on limitation grounds.
Issues
Whether the approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was barred by limitation.
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and backwages.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that his services were never terminated and the employer-employee relationship continued, and the delay in filing the approach notice was due to the mill's collusion with the union.
The respondent contended that the approach notice was filed beyond the period stipulated in Section 42(4) and there was no sufficient cause for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 must be filed within the stipulated period, and if there is a delay, the workman must show sufficient cause. In this case, the delay was not sufficiently explained, and hence the Industrial Court correctly set aside the Labour Court's order.
Judgment Excerpts
In an appeal filed under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 the Industrial Court has set aside an order of reinstatement and of backwages that was passed by the Labour Court.
The Industrial Court has held that the approach notice that was preferred by the Petitioner was barred by limitation and that it was not preferred within the period stipulated in Section 42(4) of the Act.
Procedural History
The Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement and backwages in favor of the petitioner. The respondent appealed under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 to the Industrial Court, which set aside the Labour Court's order on the ground that the approach notice was barred by limitation. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Section 42(4), Section 84
- Constitution of India: Article 226
