SHANKAR MAHADEO CHARPE Vs. S S H QAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that arises in this writ-petition, arising out of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act'), is whether it is mandatory under regulation 101 that an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under S. 28 of the Act must be filed along with the original complaint.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint under S. 28 of the Act on 7th September, 1981 challenging the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 5th June, 1981 withholding increments, as an unfair labour practice under the Act. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 5th June, 1981 is communicated to him on 8th June, 1981. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not file a separate application for condonation of delay along with his original application which he filed on 7th September, 1981. A separate application for condonation of delay was filed on 21st April, 1982. On a preliminary objection being raised on behalf of the respondent under the aforesaid regulation 101 of the Act, the complaint of the petitioner under S. 28 of the Act was dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time and his application for condonation of delay cannot be considered as it is not filed along with the original complaint.

(3.) It is at this stage worthwhile to note that the Industrial Court Regulations 1975, framed under S. 339 of the Act are for regulating the procedure before the Industrial Court in the proceedings initiated before it under the Act. The relevant regulations which come into play at the time of filing or initiation of proceedings before the Industrial Court under the Act are Regulations 5, 5A, 100 and 101. The reliance is placed by the Industrial Court for its view upon the provisions of Regulation 101 which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience.