1 5882.10 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5882 OF 2010 Amar Bauta Kamgar Union ...Petitioner Versus Asst.Labour Commissioner, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Dilip Mandavia for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Ms.Rita Nadar i/b Mr.M.V.Bhatt and Mr.H.Kumar Vaidyanathan for Respondents 2 and 3. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 13, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Having perused the reasons recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mumbai in the impugned decision to reject the claim of the Petitioner, in our opinion, the same is unexceptionable. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has rightly taken into account the fact that identical issue was agitated by the workers by way of complaint ULP No.803/2004 and Reference No.77/1997. Both these proceedings have been answered against the workers. The claim regarding 2 5882.10 benefits before closure of factory were specifically agitated in the said proceedings. 2. To get over this position, Counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the Industrial Court was not on merits of the controversy but the complaint was dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. In our opinion, this argument is ill-advised. For, if the Court were to hold that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation that would disentitle the plaintiff to get any relief in respect of that claim. Admittedly, the decision of the Industrial Court has been allowed to attain finality. As long as the said decision operates against the workers, the question of entertaining the claim regarding benefits before closure of factory, cannot be countenanced. 3. Taking any view of the matter, no fault an be found with the decision of the Assistant Labour Commissioner which is impugned in this proceedings. Hence, rejected. 4. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the present Petition be ordered to be excused by the concerned Authority while giving liberty to the petitioner to 3 5882.10 challenge the decision of the Industrial Court rendered in ULP No.803/2004 and Reference No.77/1997. In our opinion, that matter will have to be considered in appropriate proceedings. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)