wp392.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.392/2011 Ashok Purushottam Nagrale -vs- Management of Western Coal Field Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri B. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 17/06/2011 Heard. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 13/02/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, by which order the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the alleged ex parte Award dated 17/10/1990 passed by the said Tribunal in the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, came to be rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the said Award dated 17/10/1990 in the above petition. The above petition had come up for admission on 30th January, 2011 when this Court observed as follows - “It prima facie appears that the petition needs to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It also prima facie appears that the laches are not properly explained by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the petition.” wp392.11.odt 2/4 In view of the said observation made by this Court, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit, which is dated 08/06/2011 wherein the delay in challenging the orders, as mentioned above, is sought to be explained. The explanation finds place in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said affidavit. The sum and substance is that the petitioner did not have the financial wherewithal to challenge the orders mentioned herein above and it is only after the Union concerned made the funds available that the instant petition has been filed. In my view, the reasons do not commend acceptance. It is required to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation the petitioner had challenged the orders passed right up to the Apex Court. It is also required to be noted that it does not stand to reason as to why the Union could provide funds to the petitioner only now and not earlier. In my view, therefore, the explanation does not satisfactorily explain the long delay in challenging the orders. In so far as the challenge of the petitioner is concerned, it is required to be noted that in earlier dispute raised by the concerned Union viz. Wardha Valley Collieries Workers Union in respect of the petitioner, a reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The said reference was answered in favour of the petitioner on 30/10/1982. The respondent aggrieved by the said Award, had filed writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Suffice it to say that in the said writ petition the said Award dated 30/10/1982 came to be set aside by the order dated 19/04/1986 and the matter came to be remanded back to wp392.11.odt 3/4 the Industrial Tribunal for a de novo consideration. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition in the Apex court. The Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter the Review Petition filed by the petitioner before the Apex Court also came to be dismissed. The said remand being on a limited issue as regards the consideration of the evidence of a particular witness, which was already on record, the Industrial Tribunal thereafter proceeded to decide the said reference. Prior to that the Industrial Tribunal had noticed the Union concerned which was representing the petitioner, which fact is admitted by the petitioner. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal thereafter passed an Award rejecting the said reference, which Award is dated 17/10/1990. The petitioner thereafter moved an application some time in the beginning of the year 2007 for setting aside the said Award on the ground that it was an ex parte Award. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal by recording a finding that since the Union was representing the petitioner, there was no need to issue notice to the petitioner and since the Union had failed to remain present before the Tribunal, the Award could not be termed as an ex parte Award. The said application filed by the petitioner, therefore, came to be rejected by order dated 13/02/2007. It is the petitioner’s own case that the said order became available to him some time in April, 2007 and the instant petition has been filed on 29/11/2010. wp392.11.odt 4/4 Shri Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons mentioned by the petitioner for not filing the petition within reasonable time have been mentioned in the additional affidavit and according to him the same warrant acceptance. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007 (112) FLR 877, in the matter of Shiv Dass -vs- Union of India and others. In my view, the reliance on the said judgment is misplaced, in the said case the petitioner was suffering from 80% disability of the eye sight on account of which he was claiming disability pension and it is in the said factual position that the Apex Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for de novo consideration. However, the Apex Court has in terms observed in the said judgment that in an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to condone the delay if it is found that there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant in asserting his rights. The Apex Court further observed that the consideration would be on a case to case basis. In the instant petition, as mentioned in the earlier part of this order, the reasons mentioned by the petitioner for the huge delay in filing the above petition do not commend acceptance. The challenge to the order impugned, in my view, also is bereft of any merit. In that view of the matter, no case for any interference of this Court is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE