Explanation For Each Day Of Delay Not Required For Condonation Of Delay In Filing A Case: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court recently held that explanation for each day of delay is not required to condone the delay in filing a case when broad reasons sufficient as per SC guidelines are given in the delay condonation application.

Justice Milind Jadhav upheld condonation of delay of over 5 years by a labour union in filing a complaint against BEST challenging termination observing that the union had sufficiently explained the delay before the labour court.

“By objecting to the delay, rather reasons for the delay, these workers will be deprived of their legitimate right of getting their complaint adjudicated. Insistence by the Petitioner that delay has to be explained for each day of delay cannot be countenanced…In view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, explanation for day-to-day delay is not necessarily to be given. Broadly the reasons for the delay are mentioned and they cannot be disbelieved”, the court observed.

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by BEST challenging the condonation of delay in a labour dispute case by seven former workers whose services were terminated in 2015.

Facts

The workers were engaged by BEST as casual workers on different dates between 2006 and 2010. Their services were terminated via an oral order on March 20, 2015. Subsequent representations made by the workers, including a letter from the Bombay Electric Workers Union, went unanswered.

Thereafter, another union BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana filed a complaint before the Labor Court under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act in January 2021, challenging the termination. The complaint was delayed by 5 years and 11 months in filing.

In the application for condonation of delay, the workers explained that initially they had approached the recognized union who addressed their grievance to BEST. However, BEST did not take any action. Thereafter in 2020, the workers approached another union for redressal of their grievances.

The Labor Court, on October 4, 2021, condoned the delay, permitting the hearing of the complaint. On January 25, 2023, the Industrial Tribunal partly allowed the revision application filed by BEST, upholding the condonation but directing the workers to deposit cost of Rs. 1050 within 15 days. BEST approached the High Court challenging the condonation of delay.

Arguments

Advocate Harsh Misra for BEST contended that the workers could not file a common Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Complaint, as each had a distinct claim. Misra further contended both the Labor Court and the Industrial Tribunal failed to provide cogent reasons for allowing an extended delay of 5 years and 11 months in filing the complaint. He asserted that the complaints filed by the workers were barred by limitation and thus not maintainable.

Advocates Shailesh Pathak and Jay Vora for the workers contended that the termination order was not conveyed to the workers. Pathak argued that BEST refused to provide employment to the workers as per its own guidelines, and their representations were met with silence. He stated that BEST did not respond to the representations which means that the representations were under consideration.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court invoked the Supreme Court's guidelines in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, emphasizing a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications for condonation of delay. The Apex Court had underscored the elasticity of the term "sufficient cause" and the need for a non-pedantic perspective.

The court concluded that the workers had sufficiently explained the cause for the delay in filing the complaint. The court rejected BEST's argument that reasons for delay needed to be explained day by day.

Recognizing the potential deprivation of the workers' legitimate rights if the delay were to be used as a ground for dismissal, the court upheld the judgments of both the Labor Court and the Industrial Tribunal.

The court instructed the Labor Court to decide the complaint filed by the workers within a year and clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 8045 of 2023

Case Title – Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport v. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors.