fa1128.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL N O. 1128 OF 2011 1 The Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Punch Deep Bhavan Room No. 689/690, Bibwewadi, Pune District Pune 411037 2 The Manager Employees State Insurance Corporation Gopal Nagar, Dhule .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Shri Madhukar Narayan Shinde age 44 years, occ. nil r/o Rambhau Wadekar Chal, Station Road, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2011 1 The Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Punch Deep Bhavan Room No. 689/690, Bibwewadi, Pune District Pune 411037 2 The Manager Employees State Insurance Corporation Gopal Nagar, Dhule .. APPELLANTS VERSUS fa1128.11 2 Shri Chandrasing Anandsing Rajput age 55 years, occ. nil r/o Sambhhappa Colony, Chitod Road, Dhule Dist. Dhule .. RESPONDENT Mr. V.D. Sonwane, advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.U. Chaudhari, advocate for respondent no. 1. ===== CORAM : A.V. POTDAR DATE : 7 th DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in First Appeal No. 1128/2011 is to the judgment and order passed by the Member, Industrial Tribunal, Dhule in ESI Application No. 49/2008 while challenge in First Appeal No. 1129/2011 is to the judgment and order passed in ESI Application No. 8/2009. 2. Admit. By consent heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Small question involves in both these appeals as to whether the application filed for unemployment allowance under the scheme of Rajiv Gandhik Shramik kalyan Youjna can be entertained, if filed after a period of six months from closure of respective factory. fa1128.11 3 4. It is not in dispute that both these appellants were serving with Maharashtra Oil Industry which was closed on 30-6-2005. It appears that respective respondents have filed claim application for unemployment allowance on 30-5-2006. As the said applications, according to the concerned authority, were not filed within a period of six months, those were rejected and the decision was communicated vide letter dated 19-6-2006. Being aggrieved by said communication, it appears that respective respondents have filed application under section 77 of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 before the Member, Industrial Court, Dhule which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 6-5-2009 which order is impugned in both these appeals. 5. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel for appellants urged that the Member, Industrial court has no authority to condone delay if the application for unemployment allowance was filed after six months after closure of the factory and the order impugned in the appeals is without jurisdiction hence, the appeals need to be allowed and the order impugned be quashed and set aside. Per contra, relying on the group of appeals decided by this Court in First Appeal No. 2260/2009 and companion appeals by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide fa1128.11 4 judgment dated 8-3-2010 and in another group of appeals being First Appeal No. 1291/2009 and companion appeals decided by learned Single Judge of this court vide judgment dated 25-6-2009, identical question was posed before this Court and thus Court was pleased to dismiss the appeals. Considering this fact, following questions of law arise for consideration : 1 Whether limitation can be released in the applications ? 2 Whether the Court is empowered to condone delay in absence of statutory arrangement ? 6. While deciding the group of appeals being First Appeal No. 1291/2009 and companion appeals the learned Single Judge of this Court observed in paragraph nos. 4 to 8 thus : 4 There is no controversy that the employees in this bunch of the matter were eligible to the benefits provided under the Rajiv Gandhi Shramik Kalyan Youjna and the proceudre laid down therein including the eligibility criteria contemplate under clause 12(e)(2) thereof. Hence, I need not to ponder upon eligibility conditions again. As per clause 12 (e)(7) claim for unemployment allowance is to be submitted by the claimant at any time but not latter than six months from the date of retrenchment or unemployment to the appropriate branch office in prescribed from U-A-A, supported by documentary evidence in form proving by Inspector of Factories or Deputy Labour Commissioner, Workman Compensation Commissioner or any other authority specified in this regard. fa1128.11 5 5 In the group of these cases, the employee has furnished the requisite application in form U-A-2 to the Deputy Director Industrial Safety and health within the prescribed period of six months from the date of unemployment. It was these authorities who were required to further process the application and submit it to the Branch Manager of the Scheme. Unless there was a certificate from the Deputy Director in form U-A-2 the form could not have been further processed with the Branch Office. The six month period as contemplated in the scheme cannot be stretched to mean that such form necessarily should be with the Branch Office. The employee did file the form in schedule time, but, office of Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health sit tight on the application and without processing the same, allow the time to lapse. The scheme apparently does not contemplate that the employee should be a sufferer. The very beat of the scheme, a beneficial legislation to the employees, as immediately after retrenchment to forceful unemployment, the employees should not face financial crunch or mental agony due to loss of employment,is by way of some solace to the employee. Six months benefit provided to rehabilitate or to arrange for reemployment to the retrenched persons or employees. The very scheme should not be obliterated in the manner as the appellant desires. 6 The appellant is conscious that a procedure is carved out. The employees make an application in prescribed form to one of the officer. it was subsequent thereto, the application is to be furnished to the Branch Manager. Thus, the delay in the process should not be at the shoulder of the employee. The employee cannot be thrown away from seeking benefit of the scheme on the ground of such application was not made to the Branch Manager within prescribed period of six months. 7 In the cases at hand there is clear reference of making such application to the Deputy Director Industrial fa1128.11 6 Safety and Health. There is acknowledgment from the learned Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health, Dhule that forms are submitted by the employees. In the light of such application being received by the concerned authority within the statutory period of six months, no capital can be made by the appellant / insurance corporation that the Deputy Director did not refer the date at the bottom of the certificate. The fact remains such application by the employee was within the statutory period of six months. 8 The contention of extension of six months period projected a substantial question of law, does not figure in the present appeals as there is no such extension or condonation of delay by the learned Member of Industrial Court. there is no error on the face of record in the observations of learned Member Industrial Court. The appeal sans merit. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 7. All the facts in the instant appeals are identical to the facts of the group of appeals cited supra. It is a matter of record that after closure of factory respondents herein moved application on 9-6-2006 for unemployment allowance before the appellant herein under the scheme introduced in the name and style “Rajiv Gandhi Shramik Kalyan Youjna. It appears that the application was rejected without disclosing any reason. The application was moved before the Director within a period of six months thereafter. Considering these facts which are identical with the facts in the disposed of appeals of which reference is given above, in view of the fa1128.11 7 observations made by learned Single Judge of this court in paragraph nos. 4 to 8 of the judgment referred above, this court is in agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Once this legal position is clear, instant appeals are to be decided on identical set of facts. In the light of this, appeals sans any merit, stand dismissed. As both the appeals stand disposed of, pending civil applications do not survive and stand disposed of. ( A.V. POTDAR ) JUDGE dyb