THE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD THU ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ANRversusBABRUWAN DNYANOBA BHUSE

2026:BHC-AUG:20827
                                                              Writ Petition No.9830/2017
                                                :: 1 ::




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              WRIT PETITION NO. 9830 OF 2017

            The Maharashtra State Electricity
            Distribution Company Ltd. & anr.                  ….Petitioners
                     VERSUS
            Babruwan s/o Dnyanoba Bhuse                       ….Respondent

                                            .......
            Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for petitioners (through V.C.)
            Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate for respondent

                                                ....…

                                     CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     DATE       : 28th APRIL, 2026

            ORDER:


            1.          Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.


            2.          By way of present writ petition, the petitioner assails the

            order dated 1/4/2016, passed by the learned Industrial Court, Latur in

            Complaint (ULP) No.142/2011, whereby the complaint filed by the

            respondent herein came to be allowed and the punishment of stopping

            increments for two years was set aside.


            3.          Mr. U.S. Malte, learned counsel for the petitioner, who
                                                   Writ Petition No.9830/2017
                                  :: 2 ::


appeared through Video Conferencing, submitted that, the respondent

herein was appointed as Line Helper in 2001 and he was promoted to

various posts. He submitted that, in the year 2008, the respondent was

charge-sheeted and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the

respondent. Pursuant to that, charge sheet was served and he submitted

reply.   The authority, vide order dated 28/6//2009, imposed the

punishment of stopping one increment with cumulative effect.            The

respondent preferred a departmental appeal.         He submits that, on

26/9/2011, the respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court i.e.

beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was no application

for condonation of delay. In pursuance to that, written statement was filed

and the petitioner did not lead evidence. The learned Trial Court allowed

the complaint. He submits that, before the Industrial Court, the issue was

raised that, the punishment was inflicted on 28/6/2009 and the complaint

which was filed by the petitioner is beyond the prescribed period of

limitation and there was no application for condonation of delay and as

such, the Industrial Court has committed ane error while entertaining the

complaint which is admittedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation.


4.          Per contra, Mr. C.R. Thorat, learned counsel for the

respondent supports the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, by

contending that, the punishment which was inflicted was in fact without
                                                   Writ Petition No.9830/2017
                                     :: 3 ::


conducting enquiry against the petitioner and only on the basis of service

of charge sheet. But without following the proper process of law, the

punishment was imposed. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, he

filed departmental appeal and as no any decision was taken by the

authority in the departmental enquiry, he filed complaint. He submits that,

as the cause of action is continuous one, the learned Industrial Court has

rightly entertained the complaint.


5.          I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone

through the order passed by the Industrial Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court,

in the matter of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.

Vs. The Workmen Employed represented by Firestone Tyre

Employees’ Union [AIR 1981 SC 1626], contended that, though the

complaint is barred by limitation, but even without there being application

for condonation of delay, the complaint was entertained and.


6.          Perusing the record, I find that, the punishment was imposed

on 28/6/2009 and complaint was filed on 26/9/2011, admittedly complaint

was not within limitation as the complaint ought to have been filed within

90 days from 28/6/2011. The record clearly reveals that there was no any

application for condonation of delay. Without there being any application

for condonation of delay, the complaint was decided. Therefore, only on

this ground I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition partly, thereby setting
                                                     Writ Petition No.9830/2017
                                   :: 4 ::


aside the order passed by Industrial Court and remanding the matter.


7.           In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The order

dated 1/4/2016, passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur in

Complaint (ULP) No.142/2011 is set aside. The Complaint (ULP)

No.142/2011 filed by the respondent is restored to the file of the Industrial

Court, Latur.    The respondent is at liberty to file application for

condonation of delay which shall be decided on its own merits. It is made

clear that, this Court has not recorded finding on the merits of the matter

and only on the ground of delay, the order passed by the Industrial Court

is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court. The

Industrial Court to decide the matter on its own merits without being

influenced by the observations made in this order.




                                (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)




fmp/-