-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.149 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.149 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.149 OF 2008 Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri, .. Appellant. Vs Shri Dattaram Sudam Salvi and ors .. Respondents Mr P.P.Chavan, for the appellant. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATE : 25/07/2008 DATE : 25/07/2008 DATE : 25/07/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr Chavan, the learned counsel for the appellant-Zilla Parishad. 2. The deceased-respondent Dattaram Salvi was appointed on daily wages as Air-Compressor Operator with effect from 22.11.1966 and initially he had worked in Khed Division and before he was transferred at Ratnagiri he had also worked in Deorukh Division. He had remained absent from 25.2.1976 and when he reported on 2.4.1976 he was not allowed to resume duty. He was allowed to resume duty but was immediately sent to Kolhapur for bringing some spare parts of the Air Compressor. On 16.6.1976, he reported for duty without the spare parts. He did not submit account of money paid to him for bringing the spare parts and also did not furnish any explanation as to why he remained absent for about 2.1/2 months. It appears that -2- on that count he was removed from service and, therefore, he filed a Complaint (ULP) No.76 of 1988 before the Labour Court on or about 20.4.1988 alleging unfair labour practice at the hands of the Zilla Parishad authorities and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, vide his judgment and order dated 29.5.1997 allowed the complaint and directed the complainant to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages on his original post of Air Compressor. 3. This order was challenged by the Zilla Parishad in Revision Application filed under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act and the said Revision was also dismissed by the Industrial Court on 5.12.2002. The Zilla Parishad approached this Court in Writ Petition No.8325 of 2004 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the same solely on the ground of three years delay. The order dated 20.3.2006, which is impugned in this LPA, reads thus: "Delayed filing of the petition, practically after three years, cannot be entertained for want of explanation. Laches must result in dismissal of the petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs." -3- 4. We have noted that the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court had concurrently recorded a finding that the order of dismissal dated 1.4.1988 as passed by the Zilla Parishad against the complainant was not preceded by any show cause notice and no departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The complainant had put in more than 20 years of service even though as on daily wages. 5. On the issue of delay it was contended by the Zilla Parishad that the Industrial Court decided the revision on 5.12.2002 and the Zilla Parishad received the copy of the judgment much late. The Zilla Parishad submitted the proposal on 23.5.2003 to the State Government for permanent absorption of the complainant. Till 11.3.2005 the Zilla Parishad did not receive any reply to the same and, therefore, the delay. 6. These reasons do not commend to us and more particularly when it is abundantly clear that the Zilla Parishad never wanted to challenge the impugned order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial court. Its only grievance was that it cannot appoint employees on permanent basis unless the State Government accords sanction. -4- 7. Even otherwise, we have gone through the reasoning set out by the Labour Court as well as by the Industrial Court in the concurrent findings regarding the breach of the principles of natural justice and we are satisfied that neither the Labour Court nor the Industrial Court had committed any error apparent on the face of the record so as to call for interference in the said concurrent findings. The learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the petition on the ground of delay. 8. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)