Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8901 of 2007 M/s. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. ....Petitioners V/s. Shreeniwas Vyankatrao Korwarkar ....Respondent Mr. Neel Helekar iby M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Anand Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 19th March, 2008 : 19th March, 2008 : 19th March, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. Heard Mr.Helekar, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company. By the impugned order dated 2-1-2006 passed by the Labour Court, an application for condonation of delay caused in filing a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court and registered as Misc.Application(ULP) No. 20/2005 came to be allowed and the said order has been confirmed by the Industrial Court by dismissing Revision Application (ULP)No. 15/2006 on 11-10-2007. 2. The present Respondent was appointed as a Company Trainee for a period of one year from 26-5-1994 and by the order dated 1-6-1995 he was appointed as a Junior Technical Assistant on probation for a period of six months. By further order dated 1-12-1995 his service 2 was confirmed as a Junior Technical Assistant. He was not allowed to report for duty from 27-10-1997. In the meanwhile from 17-8-1997 to 5-11-1997 the employer company i.e. M/s. Shivaji Works Ltd. had stopped the operations of its factory and on 21-1-2000 the said company was declared as a sick unit by the B.I.F.R. It was amalgamated with M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. on or about 22-1-2000 and subsequently it was the Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited who became the employer but the present Petitioner Company has taken over only the operations of M/s. Shivaji Works Ltd. from 1-1-2007 . Similarly placed employees as the Respondent had approached the Labour Court and filed Complaint(ULP)No. 1/2000 & 2/2000 and these complaints were decided on 7-5-2005. The Respondent submitted representation to the Company on or about 21-3-2005 (to M/s. Kirloskar Oil Ltd.) and subsequently approached the Labour Court with a complaint of unfair labour practice alongwith an application for condonation of delay as noted hereinabove. 3. Initially, Mr.Helekar had submitted that the Labour Court was pleased to condone the delay caused in filing a complaint even without an application for condonation of delay in the file but subsequently after verifying the record he has withdrawn the said submission and it is obvious that Ms. Application(ULP) No. 20/2005 was 3 filed for condonation of delay. By the impugned order dated 2-1-2006 delay of 7 years and 9 months has been condoned and the Industrial Court did not find fault with the said order, while dismissing Revision Application(ULP)No. 15/2006. 4. As per the Labour Court Complaint(ULP)No. 1 & 2 of 2000 came to be decided on 7-5-2005 and having come to know the relief granted to the similarly placed employees the Complainant renewed his demand to prosecute the challenge to the illegal termination of service. On the basis of the documents produced by him the Labour Court noticed that right from the year 1999 he was submitting representations against the oral order of termination. Mr. Helekar the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company submitted that on or about 4-9-1997 there was an agreement with the union and in the same it was agreed that 500 workers and 123 staff members would opt for voluntary retirement pursuant to the Scheme to be declared by the Company and those who would not be eligible for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme would submit their resignations. The Complainant was one of those who were not qualified for the VRS benefits and as per Mr.Helekar in any case by the confirmation order dated 8-12-1995 his service of contract was renewed for a period of 3 years and it could not be continued beyond that limit unless it was 4 extended. Hence, as per Mr.Helekar even otherwise after 1-12-1998 the Complainant could not have been in the service of the Company i.e. Shivaji Works Ltd. He also referred to the notice published by the said Company in some of the local newspapers on 25-10-1997. 5. The fact remains that neither M/s. Shivaji works Ltd. nor M/s. Kirloskar had taken any steps to do away with the employment of the Complainant and in the absence of any such steps being taken it would be presumed that the Complainant continued to be in service and it was a continued cause of action to agitate his grievance against the alleged oral termination of service. The Labour Court was, therefore, justified in condoning the delay caused in filing the complaint and the view taken by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court is in keeping with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Collector Land Collector Land Acquisition, Acquisition, Acquisition, Anantnag V/s. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353). Anantnag V/s. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353). Anantnag V/s. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353). Hence, the concurrent views taken by both the Courts below does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition is rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]