Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kashinath Parvati Labade, was a workman employed with the Department of Social Forestry, Maharashtra. He was allegedly illegally terminated on 01/05/1987. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as Ref. IDA No.71/1988. The Labour Court delivered an award on 23/07/1996, holding the termination as retrenchment and directing reinstatement without continuity of service and back wages. The award was published on 02/01/1997. The petitioner claimed he pursued the respondents for implementation but they delayed. After about 4½ years, he filed Complaint U.L.P. No.32/2001 under Section 28(1) read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, alleging non-implementation of the award. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 31/01/2011 on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's decision, holding that the complaint was barred by limitation and the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay of 4½ years. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Limitation - Complaint for Non-Implementation of Award - Section 28(1) read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner workman filed a complaint after 4½ years from the publication of the award - The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay and laches - Held that the complaint was barred by limitation and the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint for non-implementation of the Labour Court award on the ground of delay and laches?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 31/01/2011 dismissing the complaint U.L.P. No.32/2001 on the ground of delay and laches.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Delay and Laches
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Implementation of Award
- Complaint under Section 28(1)
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 7
Writ Petition No.3807 of 2011
Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for petitioner, Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 and 2, M/s T.K.Prabhakaran, Ashok Patil, S.V.Dankh and Y.I.Thole, Advocates (amicus curiae)
The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director, Department of Social Forestry
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint for non-implementation of the Labour Court award on the ground of delay and laches.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Industrial Court's order dated 31/01/2011 and direction to the respondents to implement the Labour Court award.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's complaint under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 for non-implementation of the Labour Court award was dismissed by the Industrial Court on the ground of delay and laches.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court delivered an award on 23/07/1996 in Ref. IDA No.71/1988, holding the termination as retrenchment and directing reinstatement without continuity of service and back wages. The award was published on 02/01/1997. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint U.L.P. No.32/2001 on 31/01/2011.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint for non-implementation of the Labour Court award on the ground of delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he pursued the respondents for implementation of the award but they delayed, and he was also pursuing other cases against the same employer.
The respondents contended that the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of 4½ years without any sufficient cause.
Ratio Decidendi
A complaint under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 for non-implementation of an award must be filed within a reasonable time. An unexplained delay of 4½ years is fatal and the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay and laches.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioner assails the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar dated 31/01/2011 delivered in Complaint U.L.P.No. 32/2001.
After a passage of almost about 4½ years, the petitioner filed Complaint U.L.P. No.32/2001 u/s 28(1) r/w it
Procedural History
The petitioner was terminated on 01/05/1987. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, which was referred to the Labour Court as Ref. IDA No.71/1988. The Labour Court delivered an award on 23/07/1996, published on 02/01/1997. The petitioner filed Complaint U.L.P. No.32/2001 under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed on 31/01/2011. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2A
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28(1), Item 9 of Schedule IV
