- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellants have preferred these appeals against the common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Letters Patent Appeals arising out of Writ Petitions whereby the order passed by the Learned Single Judge quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Jalagaon, has been affirmed.
(3.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. All the appellants were employed with the Respondent Corporation on daily wages or on temporary basis. One of the appellant was engaged as daily coolie in Construction Department of the Corporation, some time in 1989 and his services were terminated after two years in 1991. Second appellant was appointed as casual labour in Building Department of the Corporation in March 1980 and his services were terminated in 1992. The 3rd appellant was appointed as a labourer in Water Supply Department of Respondent Corporation, some time in July 1996 and was terminated in May, 1997. Similarly, the 4th appellant was engaged as casual labourer in Building Department of the Respondent in January 1989 and was terminated in December, 1991. The 5th appellant was appointed as supervisor in March 1989 and his services were terminated in 1991. Four of the appellants approached the Labour Commissioner (Conciliation officer) some time in 2001 and the 5th appellant approached the conciliation officer some time in 2000. When the conciliation failed the dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the termination of services was illegal. The Labour Court passed an award holding the termination as illegal and directed reinstatement of the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order the Respondent-Corporation moved the High Court by filing writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the award passed by the Labour Court. However, the Respondent Corporation was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellants by way of compensation. The learned Single Judge noticed that out of five, four appellants approached the Labour Commissioner for conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the date of termination of service. Only the 5th appellant approached the Labour Commissioner after three years and ten months from the date of termination of service. The learned Single Judge, following the earlier decisions of this Court held that there had been gross and inordinate delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner and, therefore, the dispute could not have been referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.;