bsb 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 WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2008 Sitaram Tatyasaheb More ... Petitioner v/s Managing Director, Shri Sant Damaji Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & anr. ... Respondents Mr.A.S.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.R.V.Govilkar for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2008 rejecting his application for condoning the delay in filing the complaint. 2. The petitioner has filed a complaint under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 contending that respondent No.2 was promoted ignoring his seniority. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has committed unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. This complaint was filed in 2 11.1.2007. The petitioner filed an application for condoning the delay by contending that although the respondent No.2 has been promoted on 11.11.2005, he (i.e. the petitioner) did not approach the Court immediately as he had requested the Assistant Labour Commissioner to look into the dispute. The petitioner has claimed that this complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner was adjourned on five occasions after which it was closed on 15.4.2006. Thereafter he made a representation to the Labour Commissioner on 22.5.2006 for redressal of his grievance. He has also approached the Commissioner of Sugar at Pune calling for his intervention for procuring the seniority list from the respondent No.1. The Industrial Court, while deciding the application, has observed that no document was brought forth by the petitioner to indicate that he had in fact approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour or the Labour Commissioner for redressal of his grievance. It is for this reason that the delay has not been condoned. 3. The petitioner has produced the documents before this Court. No reply has been filed to the petition denying that the petitioner had in fact approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and/or the Labour Commissioner. The only contention raised on behalf of 3 the respondents is that there is a delay of a considerable period i.e. from 11.11.2005 till January, 2007, when the complaint was filed and on this ground it is submitted that the order of the Industrial Court cannot be called perverse, requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. In my view, after considering the fact that the workman had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, as disclosed from the documents filed before this Court, the workman must be given an opportunity to produce these documents on record before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court will then consider those documents and decide the application for condoning the delay, afresh. 5. The order of the Industrial Court is set aside. 6. The documents which have been produced before this Court indicating that the petitioner had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Labour Commissioner and the Commissioner of Sugar shall be produced on record by the petitioner within two weeks from today. 7. The Industrial Court will decide the application 4 afresh within four weeks from the production of those documents. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. 8. Parties will appear before the Industrial Court, Solapur, on 29.9.2008