1 wp6277.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6277 OF 2010 Ashok s/o Laxman Zate, Age: Major, Occ: Service, R/o. Ukhali, Tq. Aundha, District Hingoli. ...PETITIONER VERSUS M.S.R.T.C. Parbhani Division, Through its Divisional Manager, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. S.B. Bhapkar with Mr. Sachin S. Bhise, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. A.D. Wange, Advocate for the respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20TH APRIL, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 11-10-2006 passed by the Industrial 2 wp6277.10 Court, Jalna in Misc. Application (ULP) No. 01 of 2005. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29-11-2001 the respondent squad inspected the Bus on way of Jintur to Ukhali. According to the respondent, an excess amount of Rs.4/- was found with the petitioner. On 01-12-2001 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner. On 18-02-2002 the competent authority found that the charges against the petitioner are proved and therefore, a show cause notice was issued. On 25-02-2002 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred First Appeal and same was partly allowed by setting aside the dismissal order directing the petitioner to join the employment of the respondent afresh, without continuity of service and back wages. Accordingly, the petitioner had joined service of the respondent on 18-04-2002. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner herein preferred Second Appeal before the 3 wp6277.10 competent authority. Same came to be dismissed on 28-11-2002. 4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority dated 25-02-2002 filed complaint before the Industrial Court, Jalna alongwith Misc. Application (ULP) No. 01 of 2005 for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. By impugned order, the Industrial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay. Hence this writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the pleadings in the petition and the grounds taken therein and also averments in the application which was filed before the Industrial Court for condonation of delay and submitted that, some time was consumed in prosecuting the second appeal before the competent authority, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 28-11-2002. The first appellate authority allowed the petitioner to join service 4 wp6277.10 afresh, without back wages and continuity of service and therefore, sufficient funds were not available to file the complaint. Therefore, relying upon the averments in the application for condonation of delay and also pleadings in the petition and grounds therein, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner herein in the application which was filed for condonation of delay and as a result, same came to be dismissed. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner should have challenge the order of the first appellate authority immediately. In filing the complaint challenging the said order, there is inordinate delay of 2 years and 8 months, which is unexplained. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, since no sufficient cause has been 5 wp6277.10 disclosed in the application for condonation of delay, the Industrial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective Counsel. Perused the petition and annexures thereto. 8. Upon perusal of the application which was filed for condonation of delay, it is clear that some time was consumed to prosecute second appeal before the competent authority. The first appellate authority passed the order on 01-04-2002 against which the second appeal was preferred, which came to be decided on 28-11-2002. Therefore, in my opinion, period till 28-11-2002 is explained. So far period from 28-11-2002 till 21-02-2005 is concerned, the petitioner has stated in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner was facing financial crisis and as 6 wp6277.10 a result, he could file the complaint immediately. In Para-7 of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated thus : "That, thereafter due to financial crisis and due to family problems the applicant could not approach this Hon. Court. Therefore, the delay caused in filing the present complaint is an incidental but not intentional. There is no intentional delay or laps on the part of the applicant and therefore, in the interest of justice by condoning the delay the complaint of the complainant is required to be registered. If this application is rejected then the applicant will be deprived of justice and he will be thrown in darkness. There will be ultimate injury & harm to the rights of the applicant which will not be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted by 7 wp6277.10 allowing this petition and registered the complaint of the applicant." 9. Therefore, in the light of Para-7 as reproduced hereinabove, in my opinion, the delay in filing the complaint is not intentional. The petitioner is not benefited in any manner by delaying the proceedings in filing a complaint. On the contrary, by delaying the proceedings in filing a complaint, the petitioner himself has put to loss. Therefore, it can be safely stated that there was no any malafide intention on the part of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings. In my opinion, sufficient cause has been disclosed by the petitioner in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. The length of delay is not material, however, sufficient cause which is disclosed assumes importance. 10. Therefore, taking overall view of the 8 wp6277.10 matter, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 11-10-2006 passed by the Industrial Court,Jalna in Misc. Application (ULP) No. 01 of 2005 is quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court, Jalna is directed to register the complaint and hear the same on merits in accordance with law, after hearing respective parties. It is needless to mention that the complaint filed by the petitioner is pending since 2005, the Industrial Court, Jalna shall expedite hearing of the complaint. The petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. Rule made absolute on the above terms. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/Apr11