Nawabmiya Bapumiya Deshmukh v. The Chief Executive Officer)
Facts
- 1 -IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.5030 OF 2018((Nawabmiya Bapumiya Deshmukh Vs. The Chief Executive Officer)Mr.R.S.Deshmukh a/w Mr.S.V.Deshmukh i/b Mr.D.R.Deshmukh, SeniorCounsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Panale, Advocate for the sole respondent. ( CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. ) DATE : JUNE 26, 2025PER COURT : 1.Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.S.Deshmukh a/wMr.S.V.Deshmukh i/b Mr.D.R.Deshmukh for the petitioner and thelearned Advocate Mr.Panale for the sole respondent.2.By way of instant petition, the petitioner takes exception tothe order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Member, Industrial Court,Latur below Exh.-1 in Misc.(ULP) No.03/2016, by which the applicationfiled by the petitioner for condonation of delay is rejected.3.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.S.Deshmukh submits thatthe petitioner was in employment of the respondent and was suspendedkhs/June 2025/5030 - 2 -w.e.f. 27.07.2004 and the suspension continued till 28.07.2006. Therespondent had paid subsistence allowance to the petitioner, withoutconsidering the entitlement due as per the rules, resultantly, he waspaid less subsistence allowance. It is submitted that for claiming thedifference of subsistence allowance for which he is entitled as per therules, the petitioner filed complaint u/s 28 r/w Item 9 and 10 ofSchedule IV of the The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions andPrevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred toas MRTP and PULP Act). It is submitted that since the complaint wasfiled after delay of 10 years, an application at Exh.U-1 was filed seekingcondonation of delay. He submits that in the application forcondonation of delay, the petitioner has mentioned ‘weak financialcondition’ as the reason for delay. However, the application came to berejected by order dated 16.01.2018, which is impugned in the instantpetition.4.It is vehemently submitted that the Industrial Court failedto consider the fact that the petitioner was an employee and on accountof his weak financial condition, he was not able to file the complaintwithin the stipulated time. It is also vehemently submitted that inkhs/June 2025/5030
Legal Reasoning
- 3 -support of his application for condonation of delay, the petitioner hasled evidence, and since the respondent had not led any evidence,adverse inference was required to be drawn against the respondent.He submitted that the position of law is settled that a liberal approachhas to be adopted in deciding the application for condonation of delayand hence the delay ought to have been condoned.5.In order to point out the position of Law, he relied onjudgments, in the matter of Inder Singh Versus The State of MadhyaPradesh [2025 SCC Online SC 600], an unreported judgment in thematter of Mool Chandra Versus Union of India and another in CivilAppeal Nos.8435-8436 of 2024 , dated 05.08.2024 and Raghubir SinghVersus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar [ (2014) 10 SCC301 ]. He submits that it is settled position of Law that whileconsidering the application for condonation of delay, it is not the lengthof the delay that would be required to be considered but it is the causeof delay which has to be examined. As such, in the instant matter, hesubmits that although there is delay of 10 years, the reason of weakfinancial condition, ought to have been property considered.khs/June 2025/5030 - 4 -6.Per contra, learned Advocate Mr.S.S.Panale for therespondent strongly opposes the petition. He strenuously submitted thatthe application for condonation of delay does not mention any reasons,as such, constituting sufficient cause. The only reason mentioned is‘weak financial condition’ of the petitioner. He submitted that thepetitioner was employed with the respondent/Sanstha and was gettingregular salary and therefore the reason of weak financial condition forfiling the complaint can not constitute a sufficient cause. Apart fromthis, he invites attention of the Court to the crucial admission given bythe petitioner that the petitioner/employee was aware that thesubsistence allowance, which was paid to the petitioner was at a lesserrate at the time when it was paid. He submits that the claim foradditional subsistence allowance for the period from 27.07.2004 till28.07.2006 could have been raised within a reasonable time, if at allthe subsistence allowance was paid at a lesser rate. The grievanceraised by the petitioner after his retirement is liable to be dismissed onaccount of delay and laches. In support of his submissions, he relies onthe judgment in the matter of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, SericultureDepartment and another [(2015) 15 SCC 1] and submits that theredoes not exist any live dispute and submits that the same analogy bekhs/June 2025/5030 - 5 -applied for deciding the application for condonation of delay under theMRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 7.Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.8.It has to be seen that the petitioner has filed theapplication for condonation of delay by mentioning ‘weak financialcondition’ as the only reason for delay. Perusal of the applicationshows that a general statement is made by the petitioner that onaccount of his weak financial condition, he was not able to file thecomplaint within the stipulated time. Although the petitioner has ledevidence in support of his application for condonation of delay,however, it has to be noted that he has admitted that subsistenceallowance was paid to him in ratio of 1/3rd of wages and he haswithdrawn that amount. It is pertinent to note that he has admittedthat he has apprehended at that time that the subsistence allowancewas paid at a lesser rate. He has further admitted that he has made therepresentations in that regard only from the year 2015 onwards, thatmeans after about 9 years after his retirement in the year 2006. Assuch, it is clear that the petitioner was aware about his allegedkhs/June 2025/5030 - 6 -grievance of payment of subsistence allowance at a lesser rate, however,without any justifiable reason, he has not raised the grievance by filingany complaint u/s 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The reasonsmentioned in the application for condonation of delay are also generalin nature and in my opinion do not constitute sufficient cause tocondone the delay of 10 years. It is pertinent to note that the applicanthas not raised any grievance during or after suspension or afterretirement or even at the time of retirement. Even the representationsmade by the applicants do not specifically raise any grievance aboutless payment of subsistence allowance, as observed by the IndustrialCourt. On consideration of the entire factual and legal aspects, I am ofthe considered view that the petitioner failed to demonstrate anysufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay of 10 years. 9.Although, the complaint filed by the petitioner being acomplaint under MRTU and PULP Act, which is a social welfarelegislation, the petitioner was expected to be diligent in raising thegrievance at the relevant time. It is crucial to note that the petitionerhimself has admitted that he was aware about his grievance of allegedless payment of subsistence allowance, but has not raised any grievancekhs/June 2025/5030 - 7 -at the relevant time. The grievance raised by the petitioner after hisretirement and after a delay of 10 years, cannot be considered to be alive dispute. Applying the analogy as led down in the matter ofPrabhakar (supra), the grievance raised by the petitioner being a staledispute required plausible reasons for condonation of delay of 10 years,which are not established.10.The learned Advocate for petitioner has also argued thatadverse inference needs to be drawn against the respondents since theyhave failed to lead evidence, in the matter of condonation of delay. Ithas to be noted that the petitioner has led evidence in support of hisapplication for condonation of delay, since the burden to provesufficient cause was upon the petitioner. Failure of the respondent tolead evidence cannot be considered as an adverse circumstancenecessitating any adverse inference against the respondent. As such,the argument advanced by the petitioner is not appealing.11.Having regard to the entire factual and legal aspects, I amof the considered view that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate anysufficient cause for condonation of delay of 10 years. A perusal of thekhs/June 2025/5030
Decision
- 8 -impugned order passed by the Industrial Court shows that the Courthas considered all the relevant aspects and has passed a well reasonedorder. It needs no interference on any count. The writ petitiontherefore deserves to be dismissed. 12.The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)khs/June 2025/5030