KISHORILAL MAIKULAL JAIS Vs. SANTOSHI TEL UTPADAN KENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, Act).

(2.) The petitioner, according to him, was working with the respondent from 1-4-1976 on the power machine and gas. Further, according to him, he has illegally dismissed from service by the respondent with effect form 6-4-1980. He raised an industrial dispute about his illegal dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "ID Act"). There was a settlement arrived at on 30-7-1980 between the parties by which the respondent agreed to take back the petitioner in service from 1-8-1980 and also agreed to pay the back wages and to give him continuity of service. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1-8-1980 and even thereafter when he went to join his duties he was not allowed to do so by the respondent. He therefore, filed an application under sections 28 and 30 of the Act before the Labour Court claiming that his dismissed from service with effect from 6-4-1980 should be declared as an unfair labour practice and that he should be directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity in service. The said case before the Labour Court was registered as U.L.P. Complaint Case No. 183 of 1980. However, on 21-8-1981 the petitioner withdrew the said complaint as and on the same date filed a fresh complaint case before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. Since the said complain case before the Industrial Court was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefore he filed an application for condonation of delay registered as Miscellaneous Application (ULPN) No. 23 of 1981. The ground given for condonation of delay was that the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the complaint case in the Labour Court which was withdrawn on 21-8-1981 since the learned Judge of the Labour Court pointed out that the Labour Court would not have jurisdiction in that matter in view of the settlement between the parties.

(3.) The learned Industrial Court held that the complaint case filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court was in regard to his dismissal with effect from 6-4-1980 which he had prayed to be set aside. It was thus an unfair labour practice covered by item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act whereas the complaint case filed by him before the Industrial Court was under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. Since according to the Industrial Court the cause of action in the previous case was different it was not open to the petitioner to claim condonation of delay on the ground that he was bona fide prosecuting the case in a Court of wrong jurisdiction. It, therefore, dismissed the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.