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 O R D E R : 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 2026:BHC-AUG:20827 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/-