The Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Through Its Legal Advisor Aparna Krishnakumarthet v. Bhagwan Sampatrao Ugale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8476 OF 2016 Sagar s/o. Tukaram Narkar Age: 32 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Kabeer Nagar, Osmanpura, WRIT PETITION NO. 8486 OF 2016 Sangitabai Bhaskar Kamble, Age: Major, Occ: Nil, R/o. Nagsen Nagar, Osmanpura, WRIT PETITION NO. 8487 OF 2016

Bhartibai W/o. Vijay Bhalerao, Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Near Bhadkal Gate, WRIT PETITION NO. 8488 OF 2016 Kantabai W/o. Ashok Gangawane, Age: 42 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Town Hall, WRIT PETITION NO. 8489 OF 2016 Kasturabai Annu Alkunte, Age: 54 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Pragati Colony, Town Hall, Aurangabad.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8490 OF 2016 Sundarbai W/o. Suryabhan Mhaske, Age: 40 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Anand Nagar, Asifiya, Aurangabad.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8491 OF 2016 Anita W/o. Bhagwan Ugale, Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Near Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden, Gulabwadi, Jai Bheem Nagar, Aurangabad.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8492 OF 2016

Kailas S/o. Uttamrao Hiwrale, Age: 28 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Jaibeem Nagar, Town Hall, WRIT PETITION NO. 8493 OF 2016 Chandrakalabai W/o. Bhagwan Hiwrale, Age: Major, Occ: Nil, R/o. Kachiwada, Jadhav Mandi, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8494 OF 2016 Aparna Krishnakumar Thete, Amol S/o. Dhuraji Suryanarayan, Age: 27 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, N-7, CIDCO,

WRIT PETITION NO. 8498 OF 2016 Rekhabai Raosaheb Hiwrale, Age: Major, Occ: Nil, R/o. Jaibhimnagar, Town Hall, WRIT PETITION NO. 8499 OF 2016 Bharat S/o. Devidas Kale, Age: 32 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Ektanagar, Harsool, WRIT PETITION NO. 8506 OF 2016

Nandu S/o. Sundarlal Sable, Age: 39 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Begumpura, Ghati Area, WRIT PETITION NO. 8507 OF 2016 Bhagwan S/o. Sampatrao Ugale, Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Jaibheem Nagar, Town Hall, ...

Advocates for the Petitioners : Shri S.S.Tope Advocate for the Respondents : Shri R.K.Khandelwal ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: August 10, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.

Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2.

Rule.

3.

By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4.

The petitioner - Municipal Corporation in all these matters is challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court on Misc. Applications. The said applications were filed by the identically placed respondents, who were seeking restoration of the original reference proceedings and were praying for condonation of delay in filing of the applications. The specific details about the respondent / employees, their reference case numbers, dates of award and the dates of their applications for condonation of delay, are set out in a tabular form as under:- Sr WP No.

Respondent Misc.

Appln.

No.

Ref.No.

Date of Award Date of verification on Delay Condonation Application Delay in Days 8476/2016 Sagar Tukaram Narkar 22/2014 214/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 8486/2016 Sangita Bhaskar Kamble 17/2014 422/2010 28.3.2011 12.6.2014 8487/2016 Bhartibai Vijay Bhalerao 19/2014 415/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 8488/2016 Kantabai Ashok Gangawane 18/2014 420/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 8489/2016 Kasturbai Annu Alkunte 11/2014 405/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 8490/2016 Sundarbai Suryabhan Mhaske 21/2014 210/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014

8491/2016 Anita Bhagwan Ugale 20/2014 208/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 8492/2016 Kailash Uttamrao Hiwrale 15/2014 427/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 8493/2016 Chandrakalabai Bhagwan Hiwrale 24/2014 404/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 8494/2016 Amol Dhuraji Suryanarayan 13/2014 215/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 8498/2016 Rekhabai Raosaheb Hiwrale 9/2014 406/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 8499/2016 Bharat Devidas Kale 10/2014 417/2010 28.3.2011 27.6.2014 8506/2016 Nandu Sundarlal Sable 12/2014 213/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 8507/2016 Bhagwan Sampatrao Ugale 23/2014 269/2010 4.2.2013 27.6.2014 5.

The admitted fact situation is that in all the above matters, the Reference Cases, registered with the Labour Court at Aurangabad, in which the petitioner was the first party employer and the respondents herein were identically placed second party workmen, have been dismissed as the respondents did not approach the Labour Court for presenting their statements of claims. 6.

It is also undisputed that all the awards at issue have been published by the Labour Court by following the due procedure laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial

Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. It is also admitted that all the Misc. Applications were filed by the respondents after about 400 to 1100 days from the date of the publication of the awards. 7.

Shri Tope, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court had lost jurisdiction over the matters after 30 days from the date of the publication of the award and hence, had no jurisdiction to exercise over such matters.

8.

Shri Khandelwal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of all the respondents submits that all the respondents are workers and poor persons. Though their addresses were mentioned in the order of reference, they did not receive notices and therefore, were not aware that the Reference proceedings had commenced before the Labour Court. He places reliance upon an unreported order of this Court dated 6.9.2010, delivered in Writ Petition No.8682 of 2009 [Rajman Srikrishna Morya Vs. Marshall Security Private Limited]. Contention is that this Court has held that the delay was explained in the matter as the impugned order was not an award and hence the application for condonation of delay could be entertained. 9.

I do not find that the submissions of Shri Khandelwal could be accepted since in the Rajman case (supra) the issue as to whether the Labour Court became functus officio was neither raised nor

canvassed. This Court, in the matter of Dnyaneshwar Anantrao Kulkarni Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, PWD and others [2015 III CLR 81], has dealt with the issue of Sections 17 and 17A of the ID Act 1947 read with the Bombay Rules. It was concluded that the Labour Court would lose it's jurisdiction after 30 days of the publication of the award, considering the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hansraj [(2005) 8 SCC 331]. This judgment was not cited in the Rajman case (supra). 10.

In the present case, the Reference has been rejected as there was no party before the Labour Court, even to present the statement of claim. The Reference was, therefore, answered in the negative. As such, the respondents in the present cases could surely challenge the awards in this Court.

11.

Notwithstanding the above, even if it is to be considered as to whether the reasons cited by the respondents for condonation of delay were justified or not, it cannot be ignored that the delay is in between 460 to 1100 days. The addresses supplied by the respondents were of their own Union Leader. If notices are issued to the said leader and if the said Union Leader does not intimate the concerned Advocate or the respondents herein, the reasons assigned, prima facie, may not appear to be justified.

12.

Nevertheless, the respondents herein, can challenge the rejection of the Reference matters, by obtaining a copy of the award passed by the Labour Court, through Writ Petitions before this Court. The said remedy cannot be taken away and the respondents would be at liberty to take recourse to the same.

13.

In the light of the above, these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the Misc. Applications are rejected.

14.

Nevertheless, the respondents are at liberty to assail the rejection of their reference before this Court, through Writ Petitions and the time spent by the respondents before the Labour Court in the pending proceedings and in this Court in these petitions, could be considered as a ground for entertaining the Writ Petition. 15.

Rule, in all these petitions, is made absolute accordingly. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d