DAHYABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was issued a notice to show cause in relation to his unauthorised absence and thereafter, his services came to be terminated. The petitioner filed a dispute under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties, found that the case on hand was not fit for condonation of delay. It, accordingly, rejected the application and consequently, also rejected the dispute. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Industrial Court. The learned Industrial Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the learned Labour Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. This time, again the learned Labour Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and also rejected the main dispute.

(2.) Instead of filing the appeal, the petitioner is now before this Court with a submission that termination of his services under the standard Standing Orders was illegal because without affording an opportunity of hearing or without making inquiry, such an order could not be made.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner was required to file an appeal under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947. As the petitioner had alternative remedy available to him, I refuse to interfere in the matter, but, however, grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from today before the appropriate forum. If an appeal/competent proceedings is/are filed before the competent Industrial Court, then, the question of delay shall not be allowed to be raised by the other side because the matter is pending in this Court for almost about eight years.