Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1632 (BOM)

Windsor Machines Ltd. v. Prabhakar Visantrao Thakur, Prabhat Kiran CHS Ltd.

2012-08-29

ANOOP V.MOHTA

body2012
Judgment : Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioners-Management have challenged impugned order dated 27 January 2012, in Miscellaneous Application ULP No. 1 of 2011, passed by the Industrial Court, thereby registered the complaint filed by the Respondents-original Complainants, after deciding an Application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint, under Section 28 of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “MRTU & PULP Act”). 3 The basic prayers of condonation of delay Application are as under:- “(A) Hold and declare that there is no delay in filing of the Complaint by the Complainants in respect of any cause of action; (B) Hold and declare that all the causes of action for the Complaint are of a continuing nature; (C) Hold and declare that cause of action for the relief of implementation of the Settlement dated 29th of December 2004 read with resignation letters of the Complainants all dated 29th of December 2004 is of a continuing nature and there is no delay whatsoever in filing the Complaint for the said relief; (D) Hold and declare that not making statutory payments like earned wages, full gratuity payment, retrenchment compensation and notice pay etc. give rise to cause of action of a continuing nature and therefore, the Complaint is also not barred in respect of the said reliefs; (E) Alternatively, condone the delay, if any, in respect of any of the causes of action and consequent reliefs in filing the Complaint in the interests of justice; (F) Make any other orders just and necessary in the circumstances of the case." 4. Admittedly, pending the litigation with the Respondents, in respect of the employees who were on roll, the negotiations took place. All the concerned employees, as per the said settlement dated 29 February 2004, as alleged, paid respective dues in installments, which was accordingly recorded in the settlement dated 29 December 2004. The original Complainants are amongst the others, who got the benefits. For various reasons some employees filed a complaint ULP No. 414 of 2001, which was disposed of on 22 September 2005. The order was further challenged. Ultimately, by order dated 6 September 2010, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Appeal directing the Petitioners to pay the amount directed by the Industrial Court in the aforesaid Complaint ULP No. 414 of 2001. The order was further challenged. Ultimately, by order dated 6 September 2010, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Appeal directing the Petitioners to pay the amount directed by the Industrial Court in the aforesaid Complaint ULP No. 414 of 2001. The Petitioners paid the said amount to certain employees. The dispute arose, as the others wanted similar benefits. The representation was accordingly moved. The Petitioners by reply dated 9 December 2010, denied the said prayer, basically by pointing out that 28 employees were paid, pursuant to the order dated 6 September 2010. The Respondents, therefore, filed the present complaint. The Application in question for condonation of delay was also filed. It was replied by an affidavit dated 21 February 2011. The Respondents led evidence to support the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay and/or explaining the delay. On 27 January 2012, the learned Judge has passed the order. 5. The relevant Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, permits the Labour or Industrial Court to entertain a complaint even after the period of ninety days from the date of the alleged occurrence, provided good and sufficient reasons need to be given and explained by the Complainant for filing such late complaint. The Industrial Court Regulations, 1975, under the MRTU & PULP Act, basically 100 and 101, provide the basic procedural aspects. Therefore, admittedly, there is no bar that the Court cannot entertain such delayed complaint. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners referring to these provisions; first of all pointed out that there is no question of entertaining the complaint in such fashion, basically by passing order in part, keeping the limitation point open and for some portion and/or claim, and by deciding the other part in such fashion; there is no question of proceeding with the matter by ordering registration of the main complaint. The reasons are absent, to show that there are sufficient materials and sufficient reasons to entertain such complaint. 7. The word "entertain" as mentioned in Section 28 needs to be considered from the purpose and object of the MRTU & PULP Act read with the available provisions. The reasons are absent, to show that there are sufficient materials and sufficient reasons to entertain such complaint. 7. The word "entertain" as mentioned in Section 28 needs to be considered from the purpose and object of the MRTU & PULP Act read with the available provisions. If the legislature has provided the provisions, whereby a party/complainant, if filed a complaint even beyond ninety days, and the Court if the case is made out, may entertain such complaint even after the prescribed period, then the requirement is to consider such Application for condonation of delay immediately, even before so called registration of the complaint. The Court has no option but to entertain such application first and decide the same. 8. An Application for condonation of delay, in my view, just cannot be decided in isolation. The facts and circumstances, always play important role while passing any order on condonation of delay Application. The Application for condonation of delay, in no way, can be dealt without taking note of necessary pleadings, even on merits of the matter. The averments so made in the main complaint and along with the Application for condonation of delay, in my view, always need to be read together. While deciding such Application and basically even on the ground of limitation, the Court needs to consider the basic averments made in the complaint read with the prayers and the averments made with regard to the "good and sufficient reasons" for condonation of delay. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has relied and referred the basic prayers of the complaint. Those prayers are for the declaration and reliefs revolving around the settlement dated 29 December 2004, resignation letters and not making statutory payments and therefore also averred that the claims/complaints are not barred. The cause of action is continuing nature. In a way, it is difficult to dissect and/or decide these prayers in isolation. All are inter connected. 10. The averments made in the Application for condonation of delay provide and give details of individual claims, as prayed. Those details, as averred, admittedly refers to the earlier litigations, negotiations, settlement, the benefits given/received by the employees, the order passed by the Division Bench, the representation made by some of the employees claiming the similar benefits, the rejection of the said claim, and ultimately the present complaint referring to those background with the prayers so mentioned. Those details, as averred, admittedly refers to the earlier litigations, negotiations, settlement, the benefits given/received by the employees, the order passed by the Division Bench, the representation made by some of the employees claiming the similar benefits, the rejection of the said claim, and ultimately the present complaint referring to those background with the prayers so mentioned. The averments made in the Complaint read with the Application for condonation of delay and as specifically denied by the other side, need detailed trial and evidence. The case of the Complainants-Respondents, apart from their right and/or declaration so sought, referring back to the basic events in question, and by making a positive averments, that cause of action is continuing in nature. The Court, as done in the present case, permitted the parties even to lead the evidence. The Respondents-complainants led their evidence to support their case and for condonation of delay. Having once done so, the learned Judge, though by short order, ultimately decided the Miscellaneous Application ULP No. 1 of 2011, in the following words:- “1. Heard Mr. Desai and Mr. Anaokar, the ld. counsels. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing a complaint relating to unfair labour practice. there is some evidence led and certain case law is also relied upon. I find that in the complaint different reliefs have been claimed and at least part of the reliefs appear to be within limitation. The complainants and the concerned employees are the ex-employees of the respondent company. Considering the nature of the matter, in my view, the complaint will have to be registered at least for the part of the claim. In such circumstances, I am inclined to register the complaint keeping open the objection regarding delay in respect of certain claims and also other objection if any raised by the respondents. Issue relating to condonation of delay in respect of part of the claims shall be decided along with other issues in the main complaint. The main complaint shall be expedited. Since the decision on the issue is deferred, I am not referring the arguments and case law cited. The complaint be accordingly registered and put up on 9.2.2012." 11. The Court always needs to consider the totality of the matter including the averments, reply, the evidence so led, basically in a situation like this where the challenge is also made even to the basic settlement. The complaint be accordingly registered and put up on 9.2.2012." 11. The Court always needs to consider the totality of the matter including the averments, reply, the evidence so led, basically in a situation like this where the challenge is also made even to the basic settlement. The Court just cannot dismiss the complaint simply because the Application for condonation of delay, is also filed, though there is a positive averments made that the cause of action is continuing one and the declaration and reliefs so sought even goes to the basic settlement between the parties. The Court has decided to consider and/or to give opportunity to the parties/ to the Complainants, to put their case on merits and for that the Court would definitely, in view of the specific provisions like to consider "the good and sufficient reasons" for entertaining such complaint. 12. The word "entertain" in no way can be restricted and/or as contended that, the Court must at this initial stage itself, decide the claim which are beyond the limitation and/or which are within the limitation. It means, before entertaining the main complaint itself, while considering the Application for condonation of delay, the Court must decide the merits of the claim. How at this initial stage itself, the Court can decide all these issues merely because the other side has insisting that the Court must adjudicate and decide the time barred claim at this initial stage itself. The whole concept of condonation of delay, and if the case is made out, is to give opportunity to the parties to proceed with the main matter, so that appropriate evidence/material can be placed in support of their claim. The Court after due trial and by giving full opportunity to both the parties may accept and/or reject the claim in toto and in part. I am not inclined to accept the submission that the Industrial Court and/or such other Court while deciding the Application for condonation of delay and basically when the ground of limitation raised, must adjudicate such claims and adjudicate the issue of limitation at this stage itself. In my view, it is impermissible to destroy the whole purpose and object and takes away the rights of the parties at such interlocutory stage. In my view, it is impermissible to destroy the whole purpose and object and takes away the rights of the parties at such interlocutory stage. When the Court fixed the matter for evidence to support the case of "good and sufficient reasons" the whole endeavour always needs to see and/or justify the case for condonation of delay. There is no question of adjudicating any issue and/or evidence on merits. 13. As noted, the averments so made in the Complaint read with the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay, and the respective prayers, apart from the evidence so led by the parties, if Court comes to the conclusion as recorded above, that “there is some evidence led and certain case law is also relied upon, I find that in the complaint different reliefs have been claimed and at least part of the reliefs appears to be within limitation, considering the nature of the matter, the complaint will have to be registered at least for the part of the Claim”. The learned Judge, therefore, directed to register the case keeping all points open, the objection regarding delay in respect of certain claims and also other objections as raised by the Petitioners-Respondents. The learned Judge has also observed the issue with regard to the condonation of delay in respect of the part of the claims, should be decided along with the other issues in the main time. I see, there is no reason to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the learned Judge has not adjudicated and/or decided the condonation of delay Application at all. In my view, though order is short, but it cannot be stated to be perverse and/or contrary to the provisions of law. He has exercised his discretion based upon the material available on record and after recording the evidence led down by the parties and considering the peculiarity of the matter, in my view, rightly kept the issues open for all the parties to agitate during the main trial. He, in fact, expedited the complaint. 14. There is serious dispute raised with regard to their respective rights, though the parties have, as recorded settled the matter some time in the year 2004. He, in fact, expedited the complaint. 14. There is serious dispute raised with regard to their respective rights, though the parties have, as recorded settled the matter some time in the year 2004. The Court, at the end of the day, after considering the merits of the matter, may accept the case of the Management and may reject the case of the Complainants, but to give opportunity to both the parties, the learned Judge, in my view, rightly kept all points open for all the parties to agitate after leading respective evidence. If positive averments are made, merely because the other side has denied that it is noway sufficient to overlook the case of the Complainants that the "Cause of Action is continued". It is difficult to the Court to decide this issue at the stage of deciding the Application for condonation of delay. If the opportunity is given to both the parties, in a given case, there may be sufficient material to justify that there is no continue cause of action. The Court, then may pass appropriate order to grant and/or not to grant the respective claims/prayers so made, referring to those events which are according to the Management are beyond the period of limitation. The purpose and object and as provided under the Act itself shows that the Court needs to consider good and reasonable cause for entertaining the complaint. At this stage, if based upon the material available on record, such application if entertained and permitted to be registered, in my view, in no way can be stated to be unjust and/or contrary to law, it no way even decide the rights of the parties finally. 15. If all the points are kept open, there is no reason that great prejudice and/or injustice would cause even to the Management except that they need to proceed with the trial and/or oppose and support to the respective case and defence. 16. Both the parties have cited various judgments. The proposition of law, needs no further discussion. The settled principle so far as the law is concerned, is also a foundation for passing even the present order. The peculiarity of the facts and circumstances so recorded above, in my view, itself make this case distinct and distinguishable. 16. Both the parties have cited various judgments. The proposition of law, needs no further discussion. The settled principle so far as the law is concerned, is also a foundation for passing even the present order. The peculiarity of the facts and circumstances so recorded above, in my view, itself make this case distinct and distinguishable. The citations, so referred and so relied, in fact supports the basic aspect of condonation of delay and giving full opportunity to all the parties to put their case/rival submissions on merits. 17. I am inclined to accept that the learned Judge has committed no error and as recorded above rightly kept all the points open and directed to register the complaint. The registration of the complaint itself means that the learned judge has considered the Application for condonation of delay and accordingly passed the order. In this way, he has given opportunity to all the parties to contest the matter. There is no total bar that the Court while granting and/or appointing such delay Application, cannot kept certain points open, including of the limitation. 18. The law is quite settled that, while considering the delay and/or the amendment and/or various such other aspects, and as there is disputed facts involved, the Court permits the parties to lead the evidence so that at the time of passing final order, the Court will consider to grant particular claim and/or Court may reject the claim on the ground of limitation also. There are various disputed facts involved, the full trial is the only remedy. There is no question of adjudicating claim in part, as sought to be submitted while deciding this Application of condonation of delay. 19. Therefore, in my view, and taking overall view of the matter, including the reasons so referred above, no case is made out. The Petition is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.