1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.940 OF 2009 Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation .PETITIONERS V E R S U S Prabhakar s/o Krishnarao Deshmukh and ors. ..RESPONDENTS Shri V.P. Latange, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Pradeep P. Sahane Advocate for the respondent 1. --- CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J : DATE :23rd JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24th July, 2008 vide which the Learned Industrial Court, Ahmednagar has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent Shri Prabhakar s/o Krishnarao Deshmukh. 2. Shri V.P. Latange, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that an enquiry was being conducted against the deceased employee namely Prabhakar on account of certain mis- appropriation and as such, the learned Industrial Court has grossly erred while passing the order. 2 3. Admittedly no penal action has been taken against the deceased employee. He retired from service in the year 1992 and subsequently died in the year 2006. Learned Industrial Court has come to the findings that civil proceedings filed against the respondent were also withdrawn by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the direction given by the Learned Industrial Court, Ahmednagar for granting pensionary benefits, gratuity, provident fund, leave allowance and difference of the 5th pay commission to which the deceased employee was entitled to are in any manner perverse. 4. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Hence the petition stands dismissed with the costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp940.09 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7355 OF 2008. 1. Shivaji s/o Dattarao Adkine age 26 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Dongarkada, Tq. Kalamnuri, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. 2. Tanaji s/o Dattarao Adkine, age 23 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R.o Yehelgaon (T), Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. ..PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Balaji s/o Narayan Adkine age 29 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, r/o Dongarkada, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. Now R/o Savangi (BK) Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. Jijabai w/o Narayan Adkine, age 50 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o as above. ..RESPONDENTS Shri P. S. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the respondent 1 and 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J : DATE :22nd JUNE, 2009. 4 JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13th August, 2008 by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the suit came to be dismissed. The petitioners also filed an application for restoration of the suit and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2007. 4. It appears from the record that since the petitioners were not feeling well, the suit was kept on September 2007. The said suit came to be dismissed. There after an application came to be filed for restoration of the suit. The application for condonation of delay was also filed , same is rejected. 5. Shri P. S. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court has grossly erred in refusing to condone the delay. He submits that the learned trial Court has taken technical approach. 6. Shri U. S. Male, the learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary submits that the learned court has rightly rejected the application. He submit that no interference is warranted. 7. From the perusal of the application for condonation of 5 delay, the grounds taken by the petitioner that they were ill and were taking treatment. The medical certificates also placed on record by the petitioners. From the record, it further reveals that by not condoning the delay of 15 days the petitioners will be at great loss. The petitioner on technical ground, In the interest of justice to settle their dispute on merits. So far as respondents, the same can be compensated by imposing costs. 8. In the result, I am inclined to allow the petition. Rule is thus made absolute in term of prayer clause ‘C’ however the same shall be subject to deposit of costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On petitioners’ deposit such costs, the respondents would be entitled to withdraw the same. Needless to say, on failure to deposit the costs as aforesaid, the petition shall stand automatically dismissed. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp7355.08