PUNE MAHANAGAR PARIVAAHAN LIMITED Vs. SHARAD B. BHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. He further submits that there was delay of more than 22 years in filing complaint. He further submits that respondent No. 1 though intimated earlier that the petitioner has taken decision to withdraw all his benefits during the period of suspension as per resolution No. 159 dated 19th February, 1985, the respondent No. 1 failed and neglected to take immediate steps to challenge the said decision. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune dated 23rd February, 2010 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2010, the application filed by respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay and oral evidence. It is admitted fact that the petitioner by their Resolution No. 159 dated 19th February, 1985 decided to take action against respondent No. 1's benefit during suspension period. The said Resolution and/or the abstract of the said Resolution was communicated to the respondent No. 1 first time in the year 2006. Therefore, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune rightly held that the cause of action arose first time in the year 2006. The lower Court rightly held that respondent No. 1 pointed out sufficient cause for condonation of delay.