Bombay High CourtCAO/912/2013rejected at admission stage

Sadashiv S/O Gondalsao Uchibagale v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) And Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act And Another

2016-01-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari2 pages

0801cao912.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAO NO. 912 OF 2013 IN MCA ST. NO. 2639 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3794 OF 2005 (Sadashiv s/o Gondalsao Uchibagale vs. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

JANUARY 08, 2016.

Heard Shri V.P. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the applicant - petitioner.

The prayer is to condone delay of 6 years and 11 days in filing MCA St. No. 2639 of 2013. In that MCA, review of order dated 18.01.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 3794 of 2005 has been sought.

Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel states that on 18.01.2007, Writ Petition No. 3794 of 2005 was disposed of because of unwillingness or inability of the review applicant to deposit the amount ordered to be recovered as arrears of minimum wages.

Thereafter in July 2012, he received a notice of RRC for recovering those dues and that notice was questioned in Writ Petition No. 6016 of 2012. That writ petition was withdrawn on 11.01.2013 and liberty was sought to file review petition.

After withdrawal of writ petition, present proceedings have been filed on 06.02.2013 and hence there is delay. He further adds that the applicant/ petitioner is now in a position to deposit the said amount to show his bonafides.

0801cao912.13 The readiness or willingness to deposit the amount or non consideration of case on merits (as alleged) could have been good ground to assail the order dated 18.01.2007 before appropriate forum. However, that order was not questioned and for a period of five years, no steps were taken. When consequential action was taken, the petitioner woke up and approached the learned Single Judge against the demand notice and recovery action. That writ petition was withdrawn and then review has been sought. It is apparent that this conduct itself disentitles the applicant/ petitioner to grant of any relief in equity. No just and sufficient grounds are made out for condonation of delay. Application is rejected. No costs.

JUDGE *GS.