KASHINATH GOVINDA BAGUL v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition is disposed off with the aforesaid
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 2(k)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the above, I do not find that the impugned order could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. However, the petitioner cannot be rendered remedy-less. He is a workman and the respondent is an industry. He can raise an industrial dispute…
Judgment
... Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Patil Sandesh R. Advocate for the Respondent : Shri D.S. Bagul ... CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE :- 09th March, 2022 Per Court:
Shri Patil, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has strenuously assailed the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule, vide which, his Miscellaneous Application (ULP) No.35/2015 seeking condonation of delay in filing the ULP complaint, has been rejected. It is fairly stated that the delay is of around four years. However, Shri Patil has strenuously canvassed the reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay.
Shri Bagul, the learned advocate for the respondent, has strenuously opposed the writ petition.
I find from the pleadings and conclusions of the Industrial *2* 916wp12543o17 Court that, in the backdrop of the limitation of 90 days under the Industrial Court Regulations, 1975 for filing the complaint (ULP), the reasons assigned are not satisfactory. The grievance is regarding non payment of one increment.
In view of the above, I do not find that the impugned order could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. However, the petitioner cannot be rendered remedy-less. He is a workman and the respondent is an industry. He can raise an industrial dispute for non payment of one increment under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the event, such an industrial dispute is raised within 45 days from today, the Conciliation Officer shall expeditiously deal with the said dispute and submit his report, as the case may be, on or before 15.07.2022. If an industrial dispute exists and the conciliation has failed, the appropriate government could refer the same to the Industrial Tribunal.
Operative part
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is disposed off with the aforesaid
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2(k).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Mar 2022. The bench was RAVINDRA V GHUGE.
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.