GANPAT GOVIND DHALE Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Safai Kamgar with the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation from the year 1949. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 375/-. It appears that his wife was also working with the said Corporation as Safai Kamgar, for about 10-12 years. She had some incident of quarrel in the month of September, 1975 with one of the Mukadams working in the said Corporation. It was alleged against the petitioner that on account of the said incident he had assaulted the said Mukadam. A domestic enquiry was held in the matter of incident of assault by the petitioner to the Mukadam and ultimately by an order dated 12th November, 1975 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint in the nature of unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 on 8th December, 1976 in the Labour Court at Kolhapur being complaint (ULP) No. 31 of 1976. A contention was raised on behalf of the Kothapur Municipal Corporation that the said complaint was time-barred as it was not filed within three months after the date of the termination. The learned Labour Judge vide his order dated 9th October, 1980 upheld the contention raised on behalf of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and dismissed the complaint as time-barred which order has been impugned in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-workman, urged that the petitioner was a Class-IV servant of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and was working as Safai Kamgar and strict principle of law as to the limitation be not applied against him especially when he had put in 25 years of service and has an arguable case that in all probability he had lost temper on account of some incident which had taken place between his wife and the Mukadam who was assaulted for which punishment may not be as drastic as loss of job. Mr. Patil further urged that the petitioner may be given opportunity to lead his evidence before the Labour Court and a technical view of the matter may not be taken so as to dismiss his complaint as time-barred. Controverting the submissions of Mr. Patil, it was urged on behalf of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation by Mr. Bandivadekar that the record is very clear that the Unfair Labour Practice complaint was filed by the petitioner-workman after about a year of termination of his services. Mr. Bandivadekar also submitted that no satisfactory explanation was given by the petitioner workman as to what prevented him from filing his complaint within three months after his services were terminated. In the submission of Mr. Bandivadekar, the contention of the petitioner-workman that he had come to know about his termination order somewhere in December, 1976 appears to be an afterthought and that there being no record as to this contention of the petitioner-workman, the same should be rejected.

(3.) On giving careful thought to the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the record produced before me, I am of the opinion that it is quite possible, in the facts and circumstances or this case, that the petitioner whose services were terminated in the year 1975 had come to know about it somewhere in the month of December, 1976 because he avers in his complaint that when he came to know about it in December, 1976 he and his wife had submitted an application to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation which contention of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Labour Judge on the ground that had it been so the petitioner should have produced on the record at least a copy or his application. It is too much to expect a Safai Kamgar working in a Municipal Corporation to maintain a copy of an application or applications that he would be making to his employer and produce the same in a court of law when unfortunately such contentions are raised. Therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out, in my opinion, that in all probability the petitioner had come to know about his termination from services somewhere in December, 1976 and, therefore, the complaint filed by him on 8th December, 1976 would not be barred by law of limitation. But assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner's complaint was time barred. I feel that the learned Labour Judge should not have taken a technical view of the matter so strictly and should not have dismissed the complaint of the petitioner as being barred by law of limitation. In a case like this, a workman deserves all the sympathy of court of law and it would not have been unreasonable in this case if the learned Labour Judge were to entertain the complaint of the petitioner and decide it on merits one way or the other. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Judge and quash and set aside the same.