RAJENDRA SHANTARAM CHAVAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a complaint bearing complaint (ULP) No. 671 of 1989 before the Labour court at Nasik under the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The crux of the complaint was that the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service as a permanent employee of the respondents. Along with the complaint, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. IT was pointed out that though the complaint is filed on 6. 12. 1989, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 30. 9. 1988. IT was contended that thereafter he was approaching the respondents from time to time, but only oral assurances were given. It was further alleged that the respondents have also taken in service the employees whose series were terminated along with the petitioner. IT was further averred that the petitioner was disturbed and he fell sick for certain period and was taking treatment of Doctor.

(2.) THE learned Judge of the Labour Court took into consideration the affidavit filed by the petitioner as also the affidavit of the Asstt. Engineer on behalf of he respondents. He also took into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. IT is very important to note that the respondents and their counsel remained absent when the delay condonation application was heard. In this situation, on the basis of the record and also on the basis of the decision of this Court referred to by the learned Judge in his order, the learned Judge formed the opinion that he petitioner had shown sufficient reason for condonation of delay in the complaint and he felt that the parties should be heard on merits of the claim. As such, by order dated 21. 7. 1992, the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Nasik, condoned the delay.

(3.) THE respondents filed revision application (ULP) No. 283 of 1992 in the Industrial Court at nashik challenging the legality of the order. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, nashik, went into the details of the matter as if it was an appeal. He observed that the application for condonation of delay is silent on the period of sickness. He further held that mere production of medical certificate will not explain the delay. H also felt that the ratio of the decision of this court was not attracted to the facts of the case. On detailed examination of al these facts, the learned Member of the Industrial Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of condonation of delay passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court.