1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1969 OF 2009 The Central Railway Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Mr. Yeshumitra Sabanna & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1970 OF 2009 The Central Railway Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Mr. Yeshumitra Sabanna & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Jayesh Desai i/b M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioners Mr. Yeshumitra Sabanna Respondent No.1 present in person. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 25th November , 2009 P.C. : 1. The First Respondent instituted a complaint of Unfair Labour Practices, being Complaint (ULP) No.594 of 1996 before the Labour Court, challenging his dismissal from service. During the pendency of the complaint, an order was passed by the Labour Court on 31st May 2 1997 for the deposit of the complainant’s wages from May 1997 until the disposal of the case. The workman was granted leave to withdraw the wages after deposit subject to furnishing a personal bond. The Labour Court by its order dated 15th July 1997, permitted withdrawal of the wages in view of the bond that was filed by the workman. 2. The Complaint was dismissed on 3rd August, 2001. In revision an order of remand was passed by the Industrial Court. On remand, the Labour Court once again dismissed the complaint on 31st December 2004. Once again, an order of remand was passed by the Industrial Court on 19th August 2006. Upon remand, the complaint came to be dismissed by the Labour Court on 11th November 2007. The grievance of the workman is that, after the order of remand, the Labour Court did not issued notice to him of the date of the hearing and proceeded to dismiss the complaint without furnishing to him an opportunity of being heard. 3. The complainant workman, thereupon moved an Application for condoning a delay of about 59 days in filing an Application for setting 3 aside the order of dismissal and for the restoration of the complaint. The Application for condonation was dismissed on 26th September 2007 by the Labour Court. On 28th January 2008, the Industrial Court allowed the Revision filed by the workman and remanded the proceedings back to the Labour Court. On remand, the Labour Court condoned the delay by an order dated 3rd April 2008. Thereupon, the restoration application was dismissed by the Labour Court on 22nd October 2008. The revision came to be allowed by the Industrial Court on 11th February 2009 and the Complaint was restored to file of the Labour Court. 4. The management had moved an application at Exhibit C-123, for refund of wages which had been withdrawn by the workman. That application has not been allowed. The Industrial Court in revision has directed that the application for refund shall be heard with the main complaint. 5. The Court has been informed that the complaint has been heard on merits and it has been posted for judgment on 27th November 2009. 4 6. The Industrial Court while condoning the delay held that upon remand of the proceedings by the order dated 19th August 2006, the Labour Court took the matter on board on 18th September 2006, in the absence of both the parties and fixed it for recording evidence. No notice was issued to the workman. In these circumstances, he was unaware of the fact that the complaint, upon remand, was being proceeded with by the Labour Court. It is in these circumstances, that the Industrial Court has held that the workman had made out sufficient cause for his non appearance. Consequently, the complaint has been restored. 7. The Industrial Court has furnished cogent reasons for the restoration of the complaint. A notice was not issued to the workman after the remand of the proceedings by the Industrial Court on 19th August 2006. This is fairly conceded during the course of the hearing by Counsel for the Petitioner. In the absence of a notice to the workman, reasonable cause was shown for his non appearance before the Court. 5 8. The Application by the management for refund of the wages withdrawn during the pendency of the complaint has been directed to be heard by the Industrial Court with the main complaint. The order passed by the Industrial Court is unexceptionable. The question of refund will depend upon the final result of the complaint. 9. No case for the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution has been made out. 10.The Petitions are dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)