1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10745 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10745 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Barde for Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Tandale for Respondent. Contention of Mr. Barde is, having found violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, the reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of "Dena Bank V/s Ashraf Yunus Shaikh" reported in 2009 III CLR 426 is misconceived. He attempts to invite attention to other judgments to support his contention. He has pointed out recent judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Kuldeep Singh V/s G.M., Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & another" reported in 2011 CLR 5, to urge that more delay in reaching the Labour Court in Reference Proceeding is not fatal. 2. Shri Tandale has contended that the Respondent/ employer has also filed a petition challenging the impugned Award. He 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10745 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. further states that the judgment of Honourable Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner is, in fact, in his favour. 3. Here, the petitioner has worked from 8th August, 1976 to 4th May, 1978 with Respondent. Respondent is State under Article 12 and employment with it is public employment. The dispute about termination on 4th May, 1978 has been raised before the First Labour Court at Ahmednagar vide Reference (IDA) No.50 of 2004 after 26 years after the termination. 4. Perusal of judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Sing V/s G.M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre & another (supra) particularly paragraph 21 reveals that Honourable Apex Court has concluded there that when dispute relates to discharge of a workman, if sufficient materials are not put forth explaining enormous delay ; it would 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10745 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. certainly be fatal. However, in facts before it, Honourable Apex Court was satisfied that said delay of about twelve years was satisfactorily explained. Here, there is absolutely no explanation for such delay of 26 years. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged that in fact the employer should have raised objection about such delay and then the Petitioner employee could have been called upon to furnish explanation. The contention cannot be accepted. The written statement filed by the employer before Labour Court shows that on 13th September, 1979 Government Labour Officer had closed the matter before him. The burden was upon petitioner employee to satisfactorily explain this delay and that has not been done. 6. In view of this position, I do not find anything wrong with the Award of Labour Court. Labour Court has directed employer to 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10745 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. pay retrenchment compensation to him for completed period of service also to additionally pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 7. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 8. Needless to mention that this consideration shall not eclipse the challenges raised by Respondent before this Court in its writ petition. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:03/02/2011. ans/10745