1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2909 OF 2009 Stree Shikshan Sanstha, Dhule .. Petitioner Versus Tushar Shantaram Pandit .. Respondent -- Mr. S.P. Brahme, Adovocate for the petitioner Mrs.A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6th December, 2008 vide which the application filed by the respondent employee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal came to be allowed. 2. The respondent employee has been terminated from service by the petitioners. Being aggrieved thereby he has preferred an appeal. Since the appeal was delayed by one year 4 months, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The same was allowed. Hence, the present petition. 2. Shri Brahme,learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the application. He submits that 2 from the medical certificate relied upon by the respondent/employee it cannot be said that the condition of the respondent was such that he could not take steps for filing the appeal. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. He relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the matter of "The Executive President and others Vs. Bhaskar Bhagwant Yadav and others" reported in 2001(1) Bom.C.R. 159 and in the matter of "Kamalbai Naraasaiyya Shrimal and another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare" reported in 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 51. 3. Smt. Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary submits that no interference is warranted. 4. The matter of condonation of delay is within the discretion of the judicial authority. If it is noticed that the discretion has been exercised in a perverse manner, it would be permissible for this court to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned Tribunal while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court so also of this court, has given cogent and sound reasons as to why it has found that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. 5. In so far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the matter of "Executive President" (supra) is concerned, in the said case, there was no whisper regarding delay between March 1990 and April 1993 and as such, the court found that no case was made out for condoning the delay. . In so far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the matter of "Kamalbai" (supra) the only ground raised in the application for condonation of delay was that the delay was not intentional and as such, the court found that the order which refused condonation of delay can not be termed as perverse or malafide and , therefore, refused to interfere. 3 . In that view of the matter, both the judgments would not support the case of the petitioner. 6. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/