(1) WP 8328.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8328 OF 2010 Chotulal Gulab Thakur, Age : 48 years, Occu.:Nil, R/o. Nava Thakur Wada, Dondaicha, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule PETITIONER VERSUS The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dhule Division, Dhule RESPONDENT ..... Mr. A.S. Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 25.6.2010 rendered by the Industrial Court, Dhule whereby Revision Application (ULP) no. 14 of 2010 came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner was employee of the respondent-M.S.R.T.C. He was found absent from the duty for about three months. A chargesheet was served on him. As a result of disciplinary enquiry, (2) WP 8328.2010 he was ultimately removed from service as the charge of his prolonged absentia was said to have been proved. He challenged the order of dismissal by filing complaint (ULP) no. 54 of 2005. His complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court. So he filed a revision application which also came to be dismissed on account of delay. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant orders, it is manifest that the complaint application (ULP) no. 54 of 2005 was scheduled for hearing on 5.10.2007. It came to be dismissed as the petitioner was found absent on the date of hearing. The dismissal was therefore in default. The complaint was not dismissed on merits of the matter. The petitioner therefore preferred revision application alleging that his absentia in the Court on 5.10.2007 was due to illness. He also submitted further explanation that he could not contact his Advocate and his Advocate did not inform him about the dismissal of his complaint application. He stated in his application that on 22.9.2009, for the first time, he went to the Labour Court and (3) WP 8328.2010 approached his Advocate in order to enquire about the status of the proceedings. He was then informed by the Advocate about the dismissal of the complaint application. He immediately applied for copies of the relevant orders and thereafter filed the revision application. 4. What appears from the record is that the respondent did not file any reply to the application whereunder the explanation was submitted by the petitioner regarding the delay caused in filing of the revision application. It is true, no doubt, that the medical certificate dated 1.7.2007 pertain to period of only three months ending 31.10.2007. It appears that the petitioner was under medical treatment for chronic osteomyelitis. The medical certificate prima facie shows that the petitioner was unable to walk properly as a result of the medical problem. It is but natural that he had been unable to move quickly or to walk down upto the Court even after the recovery. His statement in the application that he was not informed about dismissal of the complaint application, by his Advocate, was never (4) WP 8328.2010 controverted by the respondent. The application was thus with the explanation that had remained unchallenged. In such a case, it was expected that the Labour Court would take liberal approach. 5. Mr. Sawant submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay reasonable cost to the respondent for condonation of the delay in view of the inconvenience and the further litigation faced by the respondent. 6. Considering the un-controverted statement in the delay condonation application and the normal judicial response required to such an application by taking liberal approach, I find that the impugned order deserves interference. Hence, the Petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five Thousand) to the respondent and on condition that after restoration of the respective application, the petitioner will not seek any further adjournment before the revisional Court and will conduct the revision application which may be decided on its own merits. Another condition imposed on the petitioner is that if ultimately he succeeds, he will not be (5) WP 8328.2010 able to claim any monetary benefit for the period commencing from the date of dismissal of his complaint application till the date of the restoration of the original complaint. Petition accordingly is disposed of. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp