1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, in Miscellaneous (ULP) No.01/2012, on 15.4.2014, whereby the Industrial Court has condoned the delay caused in filing a complaint of unfair labour practice by the present respondent against the present petitioners.

3. The question to be determined in the present petition is: "can a pendency of a criminal case against an employee and his consequent acquittal therefrom be accepted as good and sufficient cause so as to condone the delay occurred in filing a complaint by the said employee against the punishment imposed on him in the departmental proceedings held against him based on the same incident which had given rise for institution of a criminal prosecution against him."

4. Respondent was working as a Driver at the State Transport Depot at Ambad in Jalna Division. On 5/10/2014 an accident had occurred to the State Transport Bus, which was being driven by the respondent. The said accident had resulted in causing death of two persons and injuries to some other persons. The State Transport Bus, being driven by the respondent, was alleged to have given dash to a Rickshaw. Some damage was also alleged to have been caused to the S.T. Bus. Based on the said instance of accident, Departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent, wherein he was held guilty for the charges levelled against him in the said enquiry, and by way of punishment, his three increments were permanently stopped. The order of imposing punishment in the Departmental Enquiry was passed on 5.10.2006.

5. In connection with the road accident happened on 5.10.2004, a criminal case was also registered against the respondent for offenses punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and 427 of the I.P.C. as well as under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yeola. The trial was held in the said criminal case and vide judgment delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yeola, on 23rd February, 2011, respondent was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

6. After being acquitted by the Court the petitioner, on 20th August, 2011, submitted an application to the competent officer of the M.S.R.T.C. at Jalna, informing that he has been acquitted from the criminal case registered against him in connection with the accident happened on 5.10.2004 and further prayed for setting aside the punishment imposed on him in the Departmental proceedings based on the said incident. According to the respondent, since his request was not considered, he submitted an application on 19th January, 2012, to the Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Jalna, and prayed for setting aside the punishment imposed on him, and to pay him the difference in the wages because of stoppage of the increments.

7. As per the further contention of the respondent, since his requests were not considered by the officers of the M.S.R.T.C., he was constrained to approach the Industrial Court at Jalna, by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act). Since delay had occasioned in filing the complaint within the stipulated period, the respondent filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, which was caused in preferring the complaint of unfair labour practice. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous ULP No.1/2012. As stated in the said application, the delay of 5 years and 22 days' was caused in filing the complaint. Pendency of the criminal case has been stated to be the only reason for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation. The application so filed by the respondent was vehemently oppos