Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Sanjay Sadashiv Jadhav nad Ors. – Petitioner
VERSUS
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 8538, 8539, 8540, 8623, 8630, 8631, 8632 OF 2015
Decided On : 25.08.2015
Delay Condonation - Employment Termination - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - The court discussed the factors decisive in the matter of condonation of delay and referred to the case law to emphasize the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay. The court found that the delay was not deliberate, and the petitioners would be remedyless if their applications for condonation of delay were rejected. The court also highlighted the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s Mst.Katiji, and concluded that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal would result in causing grave injustice to the Petitioners, thus allowing the Writ Petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of an institution, were terminated and approached the Division Bench of the Court, which directed them to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected their applications for condonation of delay, leading to the petitioners filing Writ Petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The delay was not deliberate, and a liberal approach was required in the matter of condonation of delay. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal would result in causing grave injustice to the petitioners.
Issues: Condonation of delay, availability of alternate statutory remedy, and the impact of delay on the petitioners' employment rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay and considered factors decisive in the matter of condonation of delay. The court also referred to case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were allowed, the impugned orders of the Tribunal were quashed, and the petitioners were directed to deposit costs before the Tribunal and register their Appeals.
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioners in all these petitions were the employees of Respondent No.2/ Institution and were working with Respondent No.3/ College till their termination dated 17.04.2012 communicated to them on 21.04.2012. The Petitioners are identically placed and the Respondents in all these petitions are the same.
3 The Petitioners are said to have been terminated by the order dated 17.04.2012 which was communicated to them by the Institution on 21.04.2012. These Petitioners approached the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4305/2012, 4307/2012 and 6672/2012. By order dated 30.10.2012, this Court disposed of the petitions by observing that the Petitioners have an alternate statutory remedy of approaching the University and College Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”). All the issues were kept open.
4 The Petitioners filed their Appeals before the Tribunal on 05.02.2013 along with the applications for condonation of delay. It was stated that the delay was of about 259 days. By the impugned order dated 03.08.2015, all Miscellaneous Application Nos.1/2013 to 07/2013 filed by these Petitioners for condonation of delay, were rejected and the delay was not condoned by the Tribunal.
5 The Petitioners submit that earlier they had preferred the Writ Petitions on or about 05.05.2012 before this Court. The same were disposed of by the order dated 30.10.2012. The Petitioners thus, lost about five months in this Court. It is hence submitted that delay of 259 days is neither deliberate nor inordinate. The circumstances on account of which the delay was caused, were set out in the miscellaneous applications. The Tribunal has rejected the said applications on the ground that the Limitation Act requires that the suits or proceedings instituted after the prescribed period of limitation, shall be dismissed. Section 5 of the Limitation Act vests the Court with a discretion to accept an appeal or application after the expiry of the prescribed period, if sufficient cause is shown.
6 It is further submitted that the Tribunal concluded that the Petitioners should have approached the Tribunal immediately after the Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court. The reasons cited are not sufficient and are not satisfactory. The delay is not properly explained.
7 The Petitioners further submit that the Tribunal should have considered that all the Petitioners have lost their employment. Their grievance against their termination and continued unemployment could only be raised before the Tribunal. If the delay was not condoned, the Petitioners would be kept away from the Court of Law and would not be in a position to seek redressal of their grievance. It is, therefore, submitted that a strict view in the matters of condonation of delay ought not to have been taken and hence, these petitions deserve to be allowed.
8 Shri Gore, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, has strenuously supported the impugned order. It is stated that after the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, the Petitioners were made aware of the forum before whom they could present their grievance. The Appeals should have been filed within 30 days which is prescribed under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The Petitioners have slept over their rights and have intentionally caused the delay. This would have an effect on the backwages if eventually the Appeals are allowed.
9 Shri Gore, therefore, submits that the impugned order delivered by the Tribunal is supported with reasons. The Tribunal noted that the reasons put forth are not sufficient and hence, rejected all the miscellaneous applications. The impugned order is neither perverse nor erroneous.
10 In the alternative, it is submitted that in the event this Court comes to a conclusion that these petitions deserve to be allowed, each of the Petitioners be saddled with costs of Rs.10,0
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
