ASHOKA MILLS LIMITED Vs. NAGINDAS PARSHOTTAMDAS MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be made applicable to an application filed under Sec. 79(1) read with sub-sec. (3)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short "the Act") for deciding dispute regarding propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer acting or purporting to act under the Standing Orders as postulated by sub-clause (2) of clause (a) of Para-A of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 78 of the Act before the Labour Court constituted under Sec. 9 of the Act, is the question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition may now be stated : The petitioner is a Cotton Textile Industry and is governed by the provisions of the Act. The respondent-workman was working as a permanent Patiwala in Mechanic Department of the petitioner-Undertaking since 1/12/1982. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman reported for duty on 18/01/1983 in the day shift and while leaving the Mills premises, his person was searched at the Gate and he was found clandestinely carrying four pieces of Gun Metal concealed in the shoes put on by him. According to the petitioner, respondent-workman made a confession about his guilt and tendered voluntary resignation in presence of the officers of the petitioner-Undertaking. It is the case of the petitioner that the resignation tendered by the respondent-workman was accepted by the petitioner and the acceptance was communicated to the respondentworkman and thus, the respondent-workman was relieved from service on 18/01/1983. The case of the respondent-workman was that he was forced to submit his resignation and his services were illegally terminated on 18/01/1983.

(3.) The respondent-workman addressed a notice dated 30/01/1983 to the petitioner-undertaking. The said notice was replied by the petitioner- Undertaking vide its letter dated 3/02/1983. Thereafter the respondentworkman filed T. Application No. 555 of 1983 under Sec. 79(1) read with Sec. 78(l)A(a)(i) of the Act on 16/07/1983 alleging that he was forced to submit his resignation and his services were illegally terminated on 18/01/1983. In the premises, the respondent prayed for reinstatement in service with full backwages. The petitioner-Undertaking filed written statement on 14/09/1983. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondentworkman had not tendered resignation voluntarily on 18/01/1983. However, the Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the respondentworkman by judgment and order dated 27/12/1988 holding that the respondent-workman had not given letter of request which is popularly known as 'approach letter' as required by Sec. 42(4) of the Act and, therefore, the application was not maintainable and even if the letter dated 30/01/1983 was treated as 'approach letter', the application was not filed within the prescribed time of three months and was barred by limitation.