KALYAN DOMBIVLI MAHANGAR Vs. ANIL SHANKAR DHANKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order dated 29th December, 2017 passed by the Labour Court, Thane in Miscellaneous Application (IDA) No. 5 of 2011 in Reference (IDA) No. 552 of 2002 by which the Labour Court dismissed an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for restoring a Reference under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay Rules) 1967 for setting aside an exparte award dated 28th October, 2005.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent was employed with the petitioner since 12th September, 1999 as a Badli worker in the category of "Conductor". His last drawn salary was about Rs. 3,500/-. His services were terminated with effect from 17th May, 2002. According to the respondent, the said termination was illegal and improper. He was reportedly registered with the Employment Exchange and on 12th June, 1998 he made an application to the petitioner. The respondent was called for a written test vide letter dated 3rd December, 1998 in which he qualified and thereafter he was called for interview. Out of 333 candidates who appeared for a written test, the respondent was initially at Serial No. 85 and thereafter at Serial No. 76.

(3.) On 12th May, 1999 the respondent received a communication that he was selected for the post of Conductor and was called upon to attend medical examination which he did. He was sent for training between 18th May, 1999 to 23rd May, 1999 and vide communication dated 11th July, 1999 he was appointed as a Badli Conductor. He was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and called to report for duty on 12th September, 1999. The respondent thereafter was given breaks in employment, periodically. Sometimes he worked for all days in some months and sometime for 20 days. He was then informed that his services were terminated on or about 25th July, 2001 along with 13 other conductors. The basis of termination was allegations that they had remained absent. Thereafter the respondent and other 13 persons were taken back in employment for a period of three months and thereafter further continued from January to March 2002. No order of appointment was given and ultimately vide letter dated 16th May, 2002 the respondent was informed that his services were terminated from 17th May, 2002. It is stated that eight of the workmen who were reappointed along with the respondent were continued in their services and their services were not terminated. A dispute was raised before the Labour Commissioner where the respondent sought reinstatement in service with full back wages. The Conciliation Officer attempted to resolve the dispute but upon failure thereof the State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court and that is how the Reference came to be filed.