ORAL JUDGMENT :- This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, ,dismissing the revision application of the petitioners.

2. The workers in most of the textile mills in Mumbai struck work indefinitely with effect from 10th January, 1982. The strike continued for years and many of the textile mills were closed. However, some of the stronger mills after terminating the services of the striking workmen resumed work by recruiting new employees. The petitioners were employed by respondent No.1 and had participated in the strike since 10th January, 1982. In the year 1992 the petitioners issued five individual notices to the respondent No.1, alleging that the respondent No. 1 was indulging in unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"). The respondents denied the allegation and contended that the petitioners had abandoned the service and therefore their services stood terminated. The petitioners thereafter filed five different complaints, bearing Complaint Nos. 41 to 45 of 1993 before the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai, alleging that the respondent No.1 was committing unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioners prayed for reinstatement with backwages. Along with the complaint each of the petitioners filed a separate application for condonation of delay.

3. The respondents opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that there was no justifiable reason for condoning the delay. The five applications filed by the five petitioners were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1997. The learned Labour Court held that there was a delay of more than 10 years in filing of the complaint. It further held that the delay was not properly explained and that the petitioners were guilty of gross negligence. It disbelieved the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were going to work continuously from 10th January, 1982 till 11th March, 1992 but they were not allowed to join duties and therefore there was no delay in filing of the application. In view of this the Labour Court dismissed the applications and the complaints.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court the petitioners filed common Revision application (No. 181 of 2001) before the Industrial Co Mumbai. By the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2003 the Industrial Court dismissed the Revision application. That judgment and order is impugned in the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts below erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the Industrial Court should have adopted a liberal approach and condoned the delay. In support he referred to and relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court : Ajab Singh vs. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC /351 and State of Biha and ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2306.

6. In State of Bihar and ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (supra) the appellants had contended that they did not challenge the orders due to fear of contempt and various coercive orders passed by the High Court. In those facts and circumstances the Supreme Court condoned the delay which was less than two years. In Ajab Singh vs. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and anr. (supra) the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to a reference made to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for making a reference of an industrial dispute. The decision in Ajit Singh does not in terms apply to the present case because M.R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document