RAMBHAROSE URVASA Vs. BHARAT REFRACTORIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order passed by the Labour Court on 13-1-1994 (Annexure-P/9) and the appellate order passed by the Industrial Court on 22-2-1994 (Annexure-P/11). By the said orders, the petitioner's application under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960') was dismissed on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. Indisputably, the petitioner was appointed as Khalasi on 26-5-1981 and was promoted on the post of Helper (R-2 Grade) on 2-1-1986. On the allegation that he committed murder of his wife, he was charged for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and was arrested on 30th March, 1985. By judgment dated 21-11-1985, the trial Court convicted him and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and R.I. for 4 years respectively. However, his Criminal Appeal No. 1344/85 was allowed by the High Court by judgment dated 13-12-1991 and his conviction for both the offences was set aside.

(2.) At the time when the petitioner was in jail, he was terminated vide order dated 8-10-86. From the narration of facts available in the order passed by the Labour Court, it appears that he was informed about the order of termination by the employer's letter dated 24-10-86 whereupon he moved representation before the employer against illegal termination on 29-10-86 and 31-12-86. The employer demanded medical certificate to which he replied that since he is in jail on the allegation of committing murder of his wife, he is not in a position to produce any certificate. After his release from jail, he moved a representation before the employer on 2-1-92 which was not paid heed to by the employer.

(3.) The petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court bearing M.P. No. 1322/93, which was disposed of on 19-4-93 (Annexure-P/1) with a direction to exhaust alternative remedy under the M.P. Industrial Relations Act. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 31(3) of the Act of 1960 on 21-5-93, inter alia, stating that at the time when he was terminated from the service, he was in jail and immediately after his release he submitted representation, which was not taken cognizance by the employer and thereafter he preferred a writ petition in which he was directed to exhaust alternative remedy.