1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7371 OF 2008 M/s. Khochivade Macchimar Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Pravina R. Chaudhari and another ..Respondents. .... Smt. Anjali P. Purav for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Gehani for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 8th December, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule, by consent of the learned counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the First Respondent waives service. With the consent of the learned counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The First Respondent was in the employment of the Petitioner as a sales person. On 1st June, 2001 a letter was addressed to the First Respondent informing the workman that her services would be discontinued with effect from 1st July, 2001. The services of the First Respondent were discontinued with effect from that date. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies 2 addressed a letter to the Petitioner on 20th June, 2001 calling upon the Petitioner to withdraw the notice of termination. The Petitioner submitted a reply on 25th June, 2001 maintaining its position. Thereafter after the lapse of nearly five and half years, the Petitioner received another letter from the Assistant Registrar on 30th November, 2006 seeking an explanation as to why the First Respondent had not been reinstated. The Petitioner responded thereto on 16th December, 2006. After an advocate's notice of January 2007, the Respondent instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices. An Application for condonation of delay was filed on 24th January, 2007. There was a delay of approximately five years and seven months in instituting the complaint. 3. The Labour Court by its order dated 26th September, 2007 declined to condone the delay. The Labour Court observed that from 20th June, 2001 until 16th December, 2006, no steps have been taken by the workman to espouse her rights. The revisional Court while condoning the delay merely observed that the workman was agitating her grievance before the authorities from time to time. Prima facie, there is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the 3 Petitioner that the revisional Court has not even considered whether there was any error apparent in the finding of the Labour Court that would warrant the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The limitations on the exercise of the jurisdiction of the revisional Court in a revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 are well settled. The revisional Court would not be justified in substituting a view which appears to be more reasonable for the view which has been formed by the Labour Court unless a clear case is made out for the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction on parameters which are settled in law. In the present case, the revisional Court ought to have considered whether the reasoning of the Labour Court suffers from any error apparent and whether the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction was warranted. This exercise has not been carried out. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Industrial Court dated 11th April, 2008 is set aside. Revision Application (ULP) 100 of 2007 is restored to the file of the Industrial Court for fresh disposal after hearing the parties. Parties shall appear before the Industrial Court for receiving directions on 18th December, 2008 on which date the 4 revisional Court shall set down a time schedule for the disposal of the revision afresh. Before concluding it may be noted that during the course of these proceedings, an offer has been made on behalf of the First Respondent that in the event the Petitioner agrees to the condonation of delay, the First Respondent would be ready and willing to give up the claim for backwages for the period prior to the institution of the proceedings before the Labour Court. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has not been able to make a statement one way or the other on the concession which has been offered on behalf of the First Respondent and parties have informed the Court that they shall upon taking necessary instructions inform the Industrial Court of their respective positions on the next date of hearing. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs. *****