1 wp 1548.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1548 OF 2009 1. Garware Marine Industriess Limited Mumbai through its Director and anr. .. Petitioner Versus Suryakant Madhavrao Dalvi .. Respondent Shri Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V. S. Bedre, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Shahane, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Bedre, the learned counsel for the respondent. The present respondent had filed complaint before the Labour Court against the order issued by the present petitioners dismissing the respondent from service. There was delay in filing the said dispute. An application for condonation of delay was filed. The Labour Court rejected the said application for condonation of delay. Aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred revision 2 wp 1548.09 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the revision and condoned the delay caused in filing the dispute. Aggrieved by the order of Industrial Court condoning the delay, the employer has filed the present writ petition. 2. Shri Shahane, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the application of delay is as vague as it could be. The application does not state grounds for the delay. There are no grounds muchless sufficient cause stated for condoning the delay. The application also does not state the quantum of delay. If the cross examination of the present respondent is perused, it would be clear that he does not even know the grounds raised for condonation of delay. He also does not know the facts of his case. The Industrial Court has condoned the delay on non existing grounds. The Labour Court had rightly appreciated the application and the evidence and had rejected the application. The Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence in revision. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Rhona Norenha and another reported in 2000 (85) FLR 453 and another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court 3 wp 1548.09 in a case of Ammunition Factory Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Pune Vs. Balasaheb Ramchandra Ghule and another reported in 2000 (85) FLR 496. 3. Shri Bedre, the learned counsel supports the order. 4. Perusing the cross examination of the complainant/present respondent as read by the learned counsel of the petitioner, it is manifest that the disputant/present respondent is a illiterate person. It is also not disputed that the respondent is a worker. The respondent has stated in the application and from the record it has been observed by the Industrial Court that the enquiry was conducted of the present respondent by the employer at different places and the respondent was subjected to harassment. 5. It is the discretion of the Court to condone the delay. The Industrial Court has taken into consideration the pros and cons of the case and has also scanned the record and thereafter exercised the discretion in condoning the delay. The delay appears to be of two years. Moreover, the services of the present respondents have been terminated. The proceedings have been filed by the present respondent seeking a substantive relief. It is 4 wp 1548.09 a trite law that whenever technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice shall be sub-serve. 6. The discretion exercised by the Industrial Court is a plausible one. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised only on the ground that some other view also may be possible and more particularly when the same is a discretionary one. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition being sans merit is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the application for condonation of delay and the same in no way deals with the merits of the complaint. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11