High Court

Legal Reasoning

1945-wp-2920-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2024Nilesh Laxmikant ShiurkarVERSUSPace Business Machines Pvt Ltd...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ubale Mahesh B.Advocate for Respondent : Mr. B.D. Birajdar a/w Ms. Anjali HaribhauDhat (Kulkarni)WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6380 OF 2024Mr. Vivek Makarand ShoorVERSUSNilesh Laxmikant Shiurkar…Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Birajdar a/w Ms. Anjali HaribhauDhat (Kulkarni)Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Ubale Mahesh B....CORAM :ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.DATE :22nd AUGUST, 2025P.C.:1.The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2920 of 2024 is hereinafterreferred to as “employee” and petitioner in Writ Petition No.6380 of2024 is referred to as “employer”.2.The employee claims that he was working on the post of“Technical Commercial”. He claims that he was appointed in theservice in 1999 and his services were orally terminated on 19.05.2005.He claims that ever since the order of termination, he is makingcorrespondence with the employer calling upon the employer to clearMujaheed// 2945-wp-2920-2024.odtoutstanding dues. He claims that despite repeated emails, there was noresponse from the employer and balance amount outstanding was alsonot paid. The employer contends that in such circumstance, he wascompelled to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,Aurangabad with a request seeking reference relating to the disputebetween the parties as contemplated under Section 10-C of theIndustrial Disputes Act. He contends that he had issued notices forconciliation on 01.07.2016. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour madea reference to the learned Labour Court at Aurangabad. In thereference, preliminary objection pertaining to delay and laches,territorial jurisdiction and status of the employer as workman under theIndustrial Disputes Act were raised by the employer. These preliminaryobjections came to be rejected by the Labour Court vide order13.02.2020. The employer thereafter filed an application for reviewwhich was also rejected vide order dated 27.11.2021. The employerhas filed Writ Petition No.6380 of 2024 challenging the said orders.3.Having rejected the preliminary objections as aforesaid, thelearned Labour Court proceeded with adjudication of reference onmerits. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the reference videjudgment and order dated 23.11.2023 observing that the employee hadfailed to prove that his services were terminated on 01.07.2005 asalleged by him. The employee filed Writ Petition No.2920 of 2024Mujaheed// 3945-wp-2920-2024.odtchallenging the said judgment and award. 4.It is the case of the employee that his services were terminatedon 19.05.2005. The date of termination is 01.07.2005 as per thereference order. Perusal of the documents annexed to Writ PetitionNo.2920 of 2024 filed by the employee will indicate that according toemployee, initially he had issued letters dated 25.08.2005, 28.08.2005and 06.06.2007 to the employer by registered post. The employee hasfiled certain communications sent by email from 20.06.2013 upto17.06.2014. The email communications of the year 2013 to 2014indicate that the employee did not raise any dispute as regards thealleged illegal termination. The communications reflect that he wasmaking demand for some outstanding dues which were allegedly notpaid by the employer. Thereafter, for the first time, a notice is issued bythe employee to the employer on 01.07.2016 i.e. after a period ofaround 11 years from the date of alleged termination and around nineyears from the date of last registered letters. This notice is also after aperiod of three years from the alleged email communication in whichsome monetary demand was raised. 5.The learned Labour Court has rejected the preliminary objectionpertaining to delay and laches holding that for raising a dispute underSection 10, the Act does not prescribe for any act for limitation. Bethat as it may, it is well settled that although Section 10 does notMujaheed// 4945-wp-2920-2024.odtprescribe any period of limitation, the dispute must be raised within areasonable period. The learned Labour Court has erred in notfollowing the ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matterof Nedungadi Bank Ltd Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors reported in 2001I CLR 671 and Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department &Ors reported in 2015 (4) LLN 16 (SC).6.Learned advocate for the employee places reliance on thejudgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raghubir SinghVs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2015 (2)Mh.L.J. 107, to contend that a industrial dispute cannot be dismissedmerely on the ground of delay. The judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt is delivered in peculiar set of facts. The employee in the saidcase was charged for the offence punishable under Section 409 of theIndian Penal Code on 10.08.1993. He was arrested on 15.09.1994. Hisservices were terminated on 21.10.1994 in view of the aforesaid. Hewas released on bail on 15.11.1994. It was the case of employee thathe was given oral assurance that after his acquittal, he would bereinstated in service. In such circumstances, upon his acquittal on11.07.2002, the employee approached the employer for joining servicewhich was declined by the employer. The employee raised dispute inthis backdrop. The case relied upon by the learned advocate for theemployee is certainly distinguishable on facts. Mujaheed// 5945-wp-2920-2024.odt7.In present case, there was no impediment for the employee toraise the dispute with respect to his alleged termination within areasonable time frame. The dates mentioned above speaks forthemselves. More importantly, in the email communications issued inthe year 2013 and 2014, the employee does not speak about his allegedwrongful termination and only pressed certain monetary demands. Inthat view of the matter, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe matter of Raghubir (supra) does not come to the aid of employee inthe present set of facts. In the considered opinion of this Court, learnedadvocate for employer is justified in placing reliance on the judgmentof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nedungadi Bank Ltd(supra) and Prabhakar (supra). There is no plausible explanation forinordinate delay of 11 years in approaching the Deputy Commissionerof Labour. 8.Since the preliminary objection pertaining to delay and laches isupheld, there is no need to deal with other contention pertaining toterritorial jurisdiction. 9.As regards the merits of the matter, the learned Labour Court hasobserved that the employee had failed to establish that his serviceswere orally terminated on 19.05.2005 as contended by learnedadvocate for petitioner or 01.07.2005 as recorded in the referenceorder. Perusal of the findings will indicate that the said findings areMujaheed// 6945-wp-2920-2024.odtrecorded after considering the material on record. The said findingsalso get credence from the alleged email communications filed by theemployee. These email communications issued in the year 2013-14, asstated above, do not indicate that there was any dispute between theparties with respect to alleged termination and the dispute as it appearsfrom perusal of the email communications was with respect to certainamount allegedly payable by the employer to employee. The findingson merits therefore also cannot be faulted. 10.In view of above, Writ Petition No.2920 of 2024 is dismissed.11.Writ Petition No.6380 of 2024 is allowed. Impugned ordersdated 13.02.2020 and 27.11.2021 passed by Presiding Officer, 2ndLabour court at Aurangabad in Reference (IDA) No15 of 2017 arequashed and set aside. Preliminary objection raised by the petitioner-employer with respect to delay and laches is upheld. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]Mujaheed//