( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6931 OF 2010 Anuradha d/o Dattatraya Wadekar, R/o 133, Shani Peth, Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Director, Social Welfare Maharashtra State, 3, Church Road, Pune. 2. Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik, Office of Revenue Commissioner, Administrative Building, Nashik Road, Nashik. 3. Special District Welfare Officer, Samajik Nyay Bhavan, Near Maya Devi Mandir, Mahabal Road, Jalgaon. 4. Warden, Government B.C. & E.B.C. Girls Hostel, Raju Nagar, Raver, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS …. Mr. L.V. Sangit, advocate holding for Mrs. M.L. Sangit, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondents. …. [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioner filed complaint application (ULP) No. 10/2004, alleging that she was subjected to unfair labour practices by the respondents. She claimed certain reliefs, including reinstatement by revoking her illegal termination. The respondents did not file their written statement in the proceedings. Therefore, on 7th August, 2004, the learned Judge of the Labour Court directed to proceed with the complaint application without the written statement of the respondents. He passed “No W.S.” order and thereafter, the application was posted for hearing. The respondents No. 1 to 4 appeared before the Labour Court on 12th August, 2009 and filed application for setting aside “No W.S.” order, rendered on 7th August, 2004 and simultaneously, to permit their written statement. The petitioner objected the application. The petitioner pointed out that atleast 43 adjournments were granted in the matter and the respondents did not avail the opportunities. The petitioner contended that the pleadings were not filed for more than five (5) years without any substantial reason. The petitioner further contended that the delay in filing of written statement at such a belated stage was inexplicable and was not condonable at all. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, however, allowed the application on costs of Rs. 500/-. ( 3 ) The petitioner preferred revision application (ULP) No. 40/2009 against such order of the Labour Court. The revision application also came to be dismissed as per judgement dated 25th March, 2010 rendered by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Jalgaon. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. 4. At the outset, it is important to notice that the respondents did not seek any relief regarding condonation of the delay. They did not pray for condonation of delay caused in filing application to get the “No W.S.” order set aside. The averments in the application (Exh-C10) filed by the respondents go to show that the written statement could not be filed because many a times, the officers are transferred and that there is load of administrative work on the officers. Another reason given was that the respondents are likely to be put to irreparable loss if the written statement was not accepted. 5. The amended provision contained in Order-VIII Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would make it amply clear that ( 4 ) the defendant is required to file written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him. Proviso appended to Rule-1 of Order-VIII, however, permits extension of such time by the Court for reasons to be recorded in that regard, but not beyond period of 90 days from the date of service of summons. In other words, the outer limit is of 90 days. The Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court did not consider the relevant provision in proper spirit. The impugned judgements and orders would show that the delay was condoned just for asking. The Labour Court failed to exercise the judicial discretion in appropriate manner and particularly having regard to the import of amended provision of Order-VIII Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. So far as the question of the condonation of delay is concerned, not only that the application did not show any prayer for condonation of the delay while seeking setting aside of the “No W.S.” order, but that the reasons ascribed for omission to file the written statement are too inadequate and unconvincing. The fact that the officers working on establishment of the respondent No. 1 are always burdened with the administrative work cannot be an excuse to commit delay of about five (5) years in filing of the written statement. A ( 5 ) Division Bench of this Court in “State of Maharashtra and others v. Shri Vithu Kalya Govari and others” 2008 (4) ALL MR 856, held that the ground that delay was caused on account of `official hassle’ and approval at different levels, would not constitute sufficient or reasonable cause so as to condone delay. The Division Bench further held that the practice of administrative inaction, negligence and non-cooperation of the departments, needs to be deprecated. 7. All said and done, the Court is required to consider the principle of equality before the law. It is impermissible to condone the delay committed by the respondents only because the respondent No. 1 is a Government Department and that certain administrative difficulties are put forth as reasons for the delay. There cannot be one yardstick applicable to litigants from class of private citizens and another yardstick for the litigants from the class of the Government Department. It is true that ordinarily, the administrative difficulties of the Government Department may be considered if the same are found to be genuine, while condoning the delay, by taking liberal approach. That does not mean grant of leave to condone the delay even though it is not properly explained by the Government Department. In the present case, both the Courts ( 6 ) below have failed to appreciate the legal principles and particularly the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not that in all such cases, the respondents would be defenceless for not filing of the written statement. They can cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner and can demonstrate by filing documents as to how the alleged termination is justifiable. The only prohibition is that they cannot raise specific defence, but they have right to demolish the case of the petitioner by way of cross-examination and on the basis of documentary evidence. That right is not taken away due to the directions to proceed without written statement. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have committed patent error while allowing the application for filing of the written statement. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgements and orders are set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6931-10 ( 7 )