SHRI VIJAY GANGARAM PATIL Vs. M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS KAMGAR SAHAKARI GRAHAK SANSTHA LIMITED, PARLE PRODUCTS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. AND SHRI K.W. THAKRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Application is filed by Shri Vijay Gangaram Patil against M/s. Parle Products Kamgar Sahakari Grahak Sanstha Limited u/s. 44 of MRTU and PULP Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 21st June 1996 passed by the 9th Labour Court, Mumbai. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that the Applicant was in the employment of the Respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 2nd June 1986 to 31st October 1987. The Respondent No. 1 orally terminated the services of the Revision Applicant from 1st November 1987. Thereafter, the Applicant sent a letter dt. 14th December 1987 to Respondent No. 1. Inspite of receipt of the said letter the Respondent failed to reply the same. Since, the Respondent No. 1 was not allowing the Revision Petitioner for duty. The Revision Applicant filed an application bearing Application (IDA) No. 1254 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Mumbai u/s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of dues arising out of from oral termination. The Respondent No. 1 did not appear before the Labour Court inspite of the notice and sufficient time given by the Court. Hence, the Presiding officer, 1st Labour Court, incharge of 3rd Labour Court passed an order dt. 23rd November 1989 and allowed the application filed by the Revision Petitioner. When the recovery officer started recovery proceeding against the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 filed the Misc. Application (IDA) No. 12/90 in the month of February, 1990. The Revision Petitioner again sent letter dt. 26th December 1990 to the Respondent No. 1. Neither the Respondent replied to the letter nor he allowed to the Revision Petitioner to work. The Misc. Application allowed by the Labour Court on 17th January 1995 and restored the original Application (IDA) No. 1254/88 subject to cost of Rs. 500. The Respondent No. 1 paid cost to the Revision Petitioner before the Labour Court. Therefore, the Original proceeding restored by the learned Labour Court and the same is still pending before the Labour Court. Since, the original matter again restored and pending for its decision before the Labour Court, neither the Respondent No. 1 allowed the Revision Petitioner for duty nor paying any heed to the representations sent by the Revision Petitioner. Therefore, the present Revision Petitioner filed complaint (ULP) No. 389/94 before the 9th Labour Court, Mumbai on 26th September 1994. The Respondent No. 1 appeared and filed its reply on 19th December 1994. Along with that complaint an application came to be filed by the Complainant for condonation of delay. The Respondent No. 1 filed its reply to the said application in the form of affidavit of Shri S.K. Samy, the Manager of the Respondent Society which is at Exh. C -2 in the Labour Court proceeding. Wherein the Respondent No. 1 denied the allegations made by the Revision Petitioner against the Respondent. The Respondent No. 1 intar -alia stated that the reasons given by the Revision Petitioner for condonation of delay are not genuine, justifiable, legal and proper. There is delay of 7 years which cannot be condoned by taking lenient view of keeping in mind the principle of social justice. In view of this controversy, the learned Labour Court decided the application for condonation of delay filed by the Revision Petitioner on 26th September 1994, which is at Exh. U -4 in the Labour Court's proceeding. Both the parties before the Labour Court preferred to argue out the matter on the available documentary evidence only. Both the parties have not led oral evidence on this point. After hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court passed an order on 21st June 1995 and application filed by the Revision Petitioner for condonation of delay rejected. Consequently, the original complaint stands dismissed as barred by limitation against which this present Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner u/s. 44 of MRTU and PULP Act in this Court under the following amongst other grounds: - -

(2.) FROM the pleadings of the Revision Petitioner, points arises for my consideration are as under: - -

(3.) IT is evident from the letter dated 14th December 1987 that the Revision Petitioner requested the Respondent No. 1 either to allow him for duty or to pay his legal dues arising out of from oral termination which took place from 1st November 1987. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 1 neither replied to this application nor allowed the Revision Petitioner for duty. Which indicates that the Respondent himself was silent and mum on the dispute of the Revision Petitioner. When the matter want to the Labour Court for recovery of legal dues, there also the Respondent No. 1 was absent. Consequently, an ex -parte order was passed by the Labour Court. After serving recovery certificate to the Respondent No. 1, he then rushed to the Labour Court and requested for restoration which Liberally considered by the Labour Court and the original matter restored by setting aside the ex -parte order, from the statement made by the Respondent No. 1 in its affidavit it is the contention of the Respondent No. 1 that there is delay of 7 years considering the cause of action arose on 1st November 1987. The application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. It is surprised that in the recovery proceeding the Respondent No. 1 has taken defence that they have not terminated the services of the Revision Petitioner and on other hand they are also not allowing him to work. From which intention of the Respondent No. 1 shows malafide. It is to be noted that a poor person who is fighting for his case since 1987 at various forum and the Respondent No. 1 is not paying and need to his cause by putting technical objections before the Courts and the Labour Court without considering the genuine grounds of the Revision Petitioner considered the defence taken by the Respondent No. 1 rejected the application for condonation of delay.