JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Patkar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Gangal, learned Advocate for Respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No.23 of 2021.

3. Revision Application under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, 1971 (for short ‘MRTU and PULP Act’) is filed against the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Thane in an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint to condone delay of 6 years and 4 months.

4. Briefly stated Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Respondent – Bank on 15.04.1985 and continued to work thereafter. It is the Bank’s case that he was subsequently promoted as Branch Manager and his last drawn wages were Rs.29,050/-.

4.1. On 02.03.2012, the Respondent – Bank dismissed Petitioner from service on the ground that he had consumed alcohol while on duty. According to Petitioner, before dismissal no show cause notice, charge-sheet or enquiry was held by Respondent – Bank.

4.2. Being aggrieved Petitioner filed a Civil Suit in the Civil Court at Jawhar on 22.04.2013 to challenge his dismissal. In that Civil Suit, Respondent – Bank filed written statement and raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Suit to try the Civil Suit. By order dated 04.10.2013, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jawhar answered the preliminary issue of jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a workman or employee within the definition of workman employed by the Bank and therefore the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit.

4.3. Respondent – Bank being aggrieved challenged the order dated 04.10.2013 by filing Civil Revision Application No.891 of 2013 in this Court. By order dated 06.07.2015, Revision Application was allowed and Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the regular Civil Suit with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. These are the undisputed facts.

4.4. Petitioner thereafter filed Complaint (ULP) No.161 of 2018 under sections 1(a)(b)(d)(f) and 10 of Schedule – IV read with section 28 of MRTU and PULP Act before the Labour Court, Thane. Alongwith that complaint Petitioner filed application for Condonation of Delay (ULP) No.07 of 2017 which was allowed by the 2nd Labour Court by its order dated 27.06.2018. Delay was condoned whereas the issue regarding maintainability of the complaint was directed to be decided alongwith the main complaint. However in Revision Application (ULP) No.23 of 2021, the learned Industrial Court reversed the decision of the Labour Court and held that the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner stood rejected.

5. Ms. Patkar, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner / employee would submit that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court has not appreciated the delay which had occurred due to the Petitioner approaching the Civil Court under the presumption that the Petitioner being a Branch Manager and in a supervisory position would not be covered under the definition of employee under the MRTU and PULP Act.

6. Next she would submit that it was the Respondent who had challenged the order of the Civil Court in revision proceedings by filing Civil Revision Application and this Court had specifically granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. She would therefore submit that in that context under the MRTU and PULP Act, the Petitioner filed complaint in the Labour Court alongwith application for condonation of delay because of the aforesaid reasons which were valid and sufficient to condone the delay. She would submit that the learned Labour Court while passing the order dated 27.06.2018, clearly appreciated the aforesaid sufficient cause and passed a correct order. She would su