NANDKUMAR KASHINATH DEORUKHKAR Vs. STANDERD MILL COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31 st January, 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing the revision application of the petitioners.

(2.) The workers in most of the textile mills in Mumbai struck work indefinitely with effect from 10th January, 1982. The strike continued for years and many of the textile mills were closed. However, some of the stronger mills after terminating the services of the striking workmen resumed work by recruiting new employees. The petitioners were employed by respondent No. 1 and had participated in the strike since 10th January, 1982. In the year 1992 the petitioners issued five individual notices to the respondent No. 1, alleging that the respondent No. 1 was indulging in unfair labour practice under Item 1 of schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"). The respondents denied the allegation and contended that the petitioners had abandoned the service and therefore their services stood terminated. The petitioners thereafter filed five different complaints, bearing Complaint Nos. 41 to 45 of 1993 before the 3rd labour Court, Mumbai, alleging that the respondent No. 1 was committing unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioners prayed for reinstatement with backwages. Along with the complaint each of the petitioners filed a separate application for condonation of delay.

(3.) The respondents opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that there was no justifiable reason for condoning the delay. The five applications filed by the five petitioners were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 23rd February 1997. The learned labour Court held that there was a delay of more than 10 years in filing of the complaint. It further held that the delay was not properly explained and that the petitioners were guilty of gross negligence. It disbelieved the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were going to work continuously from 10th january, 1982 till 11th March, 1992 but they were not allowed to join duties and therefore there was no delay in filing of the application. In view of this the labour Court dismissed the applications and the complaints.