Shivaji Goving Ghuge v. Maha-Vyavasthapak Mahaharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. S.D. Patil i/b. Mr. A.D. Avhad for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ........ CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 02ND APRIL 2008. P.C. :- A complaint of Unfair Labour Practices under Items 5,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 has been dismissed by the Industrial Court by its order dated 31st October 2007. The following circumstances have weighed with the Industrial Court. Firstly, there was a gross delay on the part of the Petitioner in 2 challenging the denial of promotion to him in 1981; the complaint having been instituted on 10th January 2006. Secondly, it has been held that the Petitioner was not a duly qualified candidate. The Petitioner has been educated upto the 6th Std.; has passed the Wireman's Examination and was working as a semi skilled labour and thereafter, as a semi-skilled artisan since 12th October 1979. The Industrial Court has found that the Petitioner had not completed the I.T.I. Course; that he could not under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (as amended) be posted for work in power stations of 100 MW or higher capacities and the total installed capacity of the power station at Eklahara was 910 MW. A perusal of the grounds in the Writ Petition would show that the Petitioner has been unable to plead or establish that the finding that he was not duly qualified is erroneous. Besides, on the question of delay, it is apparent from a perusal of paragraph 7 of the complaint that the denial of promotion to the Petitioner took place in 1981. The Industrial Court was justified in holding that there was a gross delay in 3 the institution of the complaint. Even if, as the learned Counsel asserts the delay was condoned, the circumstance that the Petitioner had come before the Court after 25 years could legitimately weigh with the Court in determining whether any relief in the final analysis ought to be granted. For all these reasons, no case for interference is made out. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. ------
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
IV of the M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act, 1971; Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Apr 2008. The bench was D Y CHANDRACHUD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.