1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6697 OF 2008 Shyam Dattu Surwase .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent with WRIT PETITION NO. 6698 OF 2008 Abhimanyu Shivram Gaikwad .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent with WRIT PETITION NO. 6699 OF 2008 Sanjay Chandu Bondre .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent 2 with WRIT PETITION NO. 6700 OF 2008 Rajendra Ramchandra Chavan .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent with WRIT PETITION NO. 6701 OF 2008 Sudhakar Ganpat Phawde .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent with WRIT PETITION NO. 6702 OF 2008 Prakash Dagdu Sadre .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent 3 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7234 OF 2008 Vilas Chandu Bondre .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent with WRIT PETITION NO. 7353 OF 2008 Raju Gema Rathos. .. Petitioner. versus The Liquidator, Javahar Sahakari Sut Girni Latur .. Respondent -- Mr. A.V. Patil Advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 4 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners in this group of petition have challenged the order dated 5th April, 2008, vide which the revision applications filed by them are dismissed. 3. 14 employees of the respondent Sut Girni had filed a complaint alleging an unfair labour practice against the respondent. It was the contention of the employees that they were orally terminated since the year 1995. Since there was a delay in filing the complaint, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The said application was rejected by a common order dated 25th September, 2003 in case of all the 14 employees/complainants. 3. All the 14 employees approached the learned Revisional Court by filing revisions bearing Revision Nos. 11 to 15 and 26 to 36 and 39. The learned Industrial Court vide judgment and order dated 4th October, 2009 in Revision Petition (ULP) Nos. 11/2007 to 16/2007 has remanded back the complaints in those cases to the Labour Court for deciding the same in accordance with law. 4. However, vide order dated 5th April, 2008, in the identical set of facts, the Revision Application Nos. 26 to 36 and 39 of 2007 came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby the present petitions. 5. Shri Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned Industrial court has grossly 5 erred in passing diagonically opposite orders on 4th October, 2007 and 5th April, 2008, in an identical set of facts. 6. Shri Hon. learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was an inordinate delay in filing the complainants and therefore, the revisions were rightly dismissed. He further submits that the complaints were not tenable on merits also. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted. 7. Perusal of the aforesaid two orders would reveal that the Presiding Officer of the learned Industrial Court has given diagonically opposite reasons in passing the orders. Vide order dated 4th October, 2007 while allowing the revisions he has observed that from the documents placed on record it was manifest that the petitioners have taken recourse for redressal of their grievance collectively and not individually. It is further observed that they were approaching various authorities of the State Government and it was a collective effort and their cases cannot be individualized. The learned Industrial Court has further observed that the Labour Court was not justified in going into the matters inasmuch what was relevant at the stage of condonation of delay was to establish that for a good and sufficient reason for late filing of the complaint was made out. As such the learned Industrial Court held that the delay in filing the complaint was liable to be condoned. However, in the same set of facts, vide order dated 5th April, 2008 the learned Industrial Court itself goes on observing on the merits of the matter by saying that the prayer of reinstatement 6 has been totally redundant and misguiding. The learned Industrial Court has further observed that the Labour Court has properly appreciated the documentary evidence and drawn the conclusions by providing elaborate reasoning therefor, and such delay in filing complaints was rightly not condoned. 8. It is difficult to understand as to how the same person can take such divergent views in identical set of facts. May be that since there was a time gap of about 9 months in passing the two orders, which has lead the learned Presiding Officer to take two divergent views in the identical set of facts. Condoning the delay in case of similarly circumstanced persons and not condoning the same in case of other similarly circumstanced persons, would deprive the others to get their rights adjudicate on merits. I find that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law. 9. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Needless to state that the complaints would be remitted back to the learned Labour Court for decision afresh in accordance with law, alongwith the other complaints which are already remitted to it by the learned Industrial Court vide order dated 4th October, 2007. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/