1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.314 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.314 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.314 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1820 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1820 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1820 OF 2007 The Chief Officer, Karmala Nagar Parishad & Anr. .. Appellants vs. Dnyandeo Tukaram Londhe .. Respondent WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.325 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.325 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.325 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.3024 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3024 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3024 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.316 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.316 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.316 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.317 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.317 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.317 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.318 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.318 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.318 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1823 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1823 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1823 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.319 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.319 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.319 OF 2007 IN IN IN 2 WRIT PETITION NO.1824 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1824 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1824 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.320 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.320 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.320 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1825 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1825 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1825 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.321 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.321 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.321 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.2338 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2338 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2338 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.323 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.323 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.323 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.324 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.324 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.324 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.3014 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3014 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3014 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.350 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.350 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.350 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7674 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.7674 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.7674 OF 2007 Mr.Sarang Aradhye for the appellants Ms.Shilpa R.Mangale for the respondent CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 3 DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The respondents workmen filed a complaint alleging that the appellants had committed an unfair labour practice under Item Nos.5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. Though the appellants were aware of the said matter, they did not file any written statement. The Industrial Court by order dated 30.07.03 passed an ex-parte order. The Industrial Court on the basis of an affidavit in lieu of evidence filed by the respondent workmen allowed the complaint and held that the appellants had committed an unfair labour practices under items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. 3. On 03.08.04, the appellants preferred an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application. The Industrial Court held that it has no powers to condone the delay in filing an 4 application under section 31 of the Act beyond the period of 30 days. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.1820 of 2006 before this court. The learned single Judge by order dated 01.08.2007 rejected the writ petition by a reasoned order. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. It is an admitted fact that the appellants had received the summons in the matter and they were aware of the proceedings before the Industrial Court. Despite this fact, they did not file their appearances nor contested the matter. Though the ex-parte order was passed by the Industrial Court on 30.07.2003, the appellants preferred an application for setting aside the ex-parte order only on 03.08.04. The Industrial Court has rightly not condoned the delay as it was beyond the stipulated period of 30 days under section 31 of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to place reliance on the provisions of the Limitation Act. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: 5 "29(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." 6. M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 is a special Act. Subsection (1) of section 31 provides for consequences of non-appearance of parties and subsection 2 of section 31 provides that where any order is made ex-parte under sub section (1), the aggrieved party may, within ’thirty days’ of the receipt of the copy thereof, make an application to the Court to set aside such order. It is the case of the appellant that though the order was passed by the Industrial Court on 30.07.03, they learnt about the same on 05.02.2004. Hence, there is delay in preferring application for setting aside ex-parte order. Even assuming the Appellants learnt about the said order on 05.02.2004, it is seen that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order has 6 been preferred by the appellants only on 03.08.04 i.e. after six months after they learnt of the order being passed. The application is preferred way beyond the period of 30 days. The Industrial Court has rightly held that it has no power to condone the delay under section 31 of the Act beyond the period of 30 days. 7. The learned single Judge has relied on the decision in the case of Dilip Vithalrao Jogdand v/s Dilip Vithalrao Jogdand v/s Dilip Vithalrao Jogdand v/s Vaidyanath Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., reported in 2007 II Vaidyanath Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., reported in 2007 II Vaidyanath Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., reported in 2007 II CLR 78 CLR 78 CLR 78 wherein it has been held, relying on the decision of the Division Bench at Aurangabad in L.P.A. No.3 of 2004, that the Industrial Court has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days in filing the restoration application. The learned single Judge has also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.3 of 0204 in Writ Petition No.631 in L.P.A. No.3 of 0204 in Writ Petition No.631 in L.P.A. No.3 of 0204 in Writ Petition No.631 of 2003 wherein it is observed thus- of 2003 wherein it is observed thus- of 2003 wherein it is observed thus- "We have considered the scheme of section 31 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and sub-section 92) therein enables an aggrieved party to file an application for restoration within a period of 30 days. There is no power with the Court concerned to condone the delay on the lines of such a power as he has been 7 provided under Section 30 of the Act." . In view of the legal position the learned single Judge was right in holding the restoration application, which has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, cannot be entertained by the Industrial Court and the delay cannot be condoned as the powers of the Industrial Court are circumscribed by the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant had tried to make various submissions on the merits of the matter. However, looking to the fact that there was no written statement in the said matter and the matter was allowed to be proceeded ex-parte, hence, any contention on merits cannot be considered at this stage. 7. Looking to the facts of the case, we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court. Hence, all the L.P.A.s’ are dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 8 (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.)