Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Amulya Kumar Biswas vs M/S. Nissan Eelectronics Pvt. Ltd. on 26 February, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:9903
                                                                                            35-wp4461-2021.doc


                              AGK
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                     WRIT PETITION NO.4461 OF 2021

                              Amulya Kumar Biswas                            ... Petitioner
                                         V/s.
      ATUL                    Nissan Electronics Private Limited             ... Respondents
      GANESH
      KULKARNI
       Digitally signed by
       ATUL GANESH
       KULKARNI
       Date: 2026.02.26
       17:33:03 +0530         Ms. Mansi S. Rane for the petitioner.


                                                              CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                              DATED    : FEBRUARY 26, 2026
                              P.C.:

1. The challenge in the present writ petition arises from the refusal to grant reinstatement to the petitioner. The Labour Court has declined relief primarily on two grounds. First, that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned service. Second, that the industrial dispute was raised after an unexplained and substantial delay of about seventeen years. The Court is therefore required to examine whether these findings suffer from perversity or legal infirmity, or whether they represent a plausible view based on the material available on record.

2. The record shows that the petitioner was working at the employer's unit at Silvassa up to 23 April 1997. The petitioner's own case is that his engagement at Silvassa was subject to the employer providing boarding and lodging facilities. According to him, on 24 April 1997 the employer informed him that such 1 ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:29:26 ::: 35-wp4461-2021.doc expenses would no longer be borne by the management. It is in this background that the petitioner states he discontinued work. The factual narrative, as emerging from the pleadings, does not indicate any formal order of termination issued by the employer. On the contrary, the petitioner's version suggests that after the change in conditions regarding accommodation, he chose not to continue. This circumstance assumes importance while considering whether the case is one of termination by the employer or abandonment by the employee. The Labour Court has assessed this conduct and concluded that the petitioner did not establish a case of illegal termination.

3. The aspect of delay also assumes importance. The first complaint alleging wrongful termination came to be filed only in the year 2014, almost seventeen years after the alleged cessation of employment. Industrial adjudication does not operate on rigid limitation periods in the same manner as civil proceedings. However, long and unexplained delay has consistently been treated by courts as a relevant factor while moulding or even declining relief, especially when the delay affects the availability of evidence and disturbs settled positions. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed on record any convincing explanation for remaining silent for such an extended period. There is no material showing continuous protest, correspondence, or any earlier attempt to seek redress. In absence of such explanation, the Labour Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference regarding the bona fides of the claim and in holding that the dispute was stale.

35-wp4461-2021.doc

4. Viewed from the perspective of judicial review under Article 226, the scope of interference with findings of the Labour Court remains limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over factual conclusions unless they are shown to be irrational, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to settled legal principles. The findings regarding voluntary abandonment and delay are based on the petitioner's own version and the chronology emerging from the record. The conclusion reached by the Labour Court is a possible and reasonable view. It cannot therefore be characterised as perverse or legally unsustainable. Once such a finding is reached, interference in writ jurisdiction would not be warranted. Consequently, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 3 ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:29:26 :::