1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGUR BENCH: NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3884/2001
PETITIONER:
Smt. Maya w/o Vasudeo Meshram, aged about 40 years, r/o 132, Bada Indora,
Near Buddha Vihar, Nara Road, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Admn) Civil Lines, Nagpur.
============================================================
Shri Manoj Pillai, advocate for the petitioner
Smt. Sharda Wandile, AGP for respondents
============================================================
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATE: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial
Court Nagpur on 1.11.2001 allowing the revision application filed by the respondent
and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court on 18.9.1995 in complaint
ULPA No.217/1994.
2] The petitioner was working as a daily wager in the Sales Tax Department. The
respondent had terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a
complaint against her termination before the Labour Court, Nagpur. The Labour
Court granted temporary reinstatement to the petitioner by order dated 2.1.1995.
Since the order was not complied, a criminal complaint under section 48 of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:44 :::
2
M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971 was filed by the petitioner. The court convicted the
respondents by an order dated 28.7.1999 for non compliance. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner was reinstated in service on 30.4.1998. The Labour Court finally decided
the matter on 18.9.1995 by allowing the complaint and reinstating the petitioner in
service. A revision was preferred against the order dated 18.9.1995 by the
respondent before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. The Industrial Court, Nagpur by the
order dated 1.11.2001 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Labour
Court by quashing and setting aside the order of the Labour Court, dated 18.9.1995.
3] Shri Manoj Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Industrial Court was not justified in entertaining the revision after a lapse of almost
four years from the passing of the judgment by the Labour Court on 18.9.1995. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason stated by the respondent
for not preferring the revision application within a reasonable time was not
sufficient and the Industrial Court ought to have dismissed the revision filed by the
respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court was not justified in
allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:44 :::
3
4] Smt. Sharda Wandile, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents
supported the order passed by the Industrial Court on 1.11.2001 and submitted that
due to bonafide reasons the matter was not defended before the Labour Court
though there were good grounds for opposing the complaint filed by the petitioner.
The learned AGP submitted that after the notice of the complaint was received, the
respondent had asked for sanction /permission to appoint a private counsel and since
that permission was awaited, nothing could be done in the matter before the Labour
Court. According to the learned AGP all these facts have been rightly considered by
the Industrial Court and the order passed by the Industrial Court remanding the
matter to the Labour Court is just and proper.
5] I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have
perused the impugned order dated 1.11.2001. On perusal of the same, it appears that
it would not be proper for this court to interfere with the order passed by the
Industrial Court on 1.11.2001 in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Industrial Court
considered the reason for the delay in filing the revision, as also the reason for non
appearance before the Labour Court to grant one more opportunity to the respondent
to defend the case, before the Labour Court. The Industrial Court observed that the
respondent desired to take a plea of absence of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:20:44 :::
4
decide the matter and also of the ansence of continuous rendering of services for
240 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, it
would not be proper for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the
Industrial Court in entertaining the revision and remand the matter to the Labour
Court for granting an opportunity to the respondent to defend the matter. Though it
is necessary to grant opportunity to the respondent to prosecute the matter before the
Labour Court for the inaction on the part of the respondent to diligently prosecute
the case, it would be necessary in the fitness of things to impose some costs on the
respondents. The respondents, therefore, are liable to pay costs of Rs.3000/- to the
petitioner within a period of three months. Since the petitioner is working as daily
wager with the respondents since 30.4.1998, the respondents should continue the
petitioner as daily wager till the complaint is decided by the Labour Court.
6] Order accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
SMP.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:20:44 :::