1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8355 OF 2009 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Through its Registrar, Shri Vitthal s/o Tejabrao Jare, age 52 years, occ. service r/o University Campus, Rahuri At post Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 Ganpat s/o Kisan Karle age major, occ. Retired Employee r/o At Post Khadamba Khurd Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Agriculture Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.L. Shahane, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mrs. S.D. Shelke, AGP for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7th MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Petitioner / employer is raising exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar on 30-4-2009 thereby allowing the complaint ULP no. 81/2005 presented by the respondent herein claiming pensionary benefits. 4 According to the complainant, he was appointed as daily wager employee by the petitioner / employer since 19-7-1973. The services of the respondent were regularised and he was made permanent since 16-7-1993. Respondent / employee got retired on attaining the age of super annuation on 30-11-2000. Respondent / original complainant presented complaint under section 28(1) r/w items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. It was contended by the complainant / respondent herein that although he has rendered continuous service for 10 years prior to his attaining the age of super annuation, he has been denied the pensionery benefits. Complainant therefore seeks appropriate directions against the employer. 3 5 Application tendered by the complainant was opposed by the employer by presenting reply. According to the employer, the complainant has not rendered qualifying service of 10 years for holding him eligible to receive pensionary benefits. The employer contends that the earlier service rendered by the complainant prior to his confirment of permanency, cannot be computed for the pensionary benefits. It is contended that as the employee was confirmed permanency on 16-9-1993 and he got retired on 30-11-2000, it cannot be contended that he has rendered qualifying services as required under the rules. It was also contended that an application explaining delay has not been presented. Complaint is presented on 13-7-2005 whereas the cause of action for presenting the complaint accrued to the complainant on 30-11-2000. The employer contends that there is no explanation in respect of delay, offered by the complainant. Employer as such requests for dismissal of the complaint. 6 After hearing the rival contentions, the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar was pleased to allow the complaint and declared that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practice by refusing to sanction pensionary benefits to the complainant. It was also directed to the employer to sanction pension to the complainant / employee with 4 consequential benefits from the date of his reaching the age of super annuation. 7 I have perused the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of the judgment, it transpires that although the question in respect of delay in approaching the court is raised specifically by the employer, there is absolutely no consideration by the industrial court to the contentions raised. It also does appear that the complainant has not explained the delay and reasons for approaching the court late. It is for the complainant to explain the delay and satisfy the court on the justifiability for condonation of the lapses. In the instant matter, it does appear that there is no application tendered by the complainant requesting the court to condone the delay. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Industrial Court needs to be quashed and the matter needs to be remitted to the Industrial Court with directions to consider the objections raised by the employer in respect of delay on the part of the complainant in approaching the Industrial Court. At the same time, complainant be given opportunity to tender appropriate application explaining the delay. The Member, Industrial Court shall after considering 5 the rival contentions, proceed to decide the aspect in respect of delay in approaching the court by the complainant. Industrial Court shall hear the parties and decide the complaint in accordance with provisions of law. Impugned order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar on 30-4-2009 in complaint ULP no. 81/2005 stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, for fresh adjudication in view of the directions referred to above. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8355.09.odt