1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3925 OF 2009 Rangnath Ramchandra Gagare Age 53, Occ-Nil R/o At Post Tambhere, Tq.Rahuri Dist.Ahmednagar .. Petitioner Versus The Mula Pravara Electric Co-op Society Ltd., at Post Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagar,Through the Managing Director .. Respondent .... Shri P.V.Barde,Adv.for petitioner. Shri V.D.Hon.Adv.for Respondent. .... CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 8th JUNE, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] This petition is preferred by an employee, challenging order dated 12/2/2009 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Miscellaneous ULP No.11/2004 seeking condonation of delay of 270 days caused in filing application for restoration and for restoration of the complaint ULP 241/97. 2] Notice in this matter was issued by this Court on 22/7/2009 and in response to the notice, Shri V.D.Hon, learned counsel appears for respondent. 3] Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed at the stage of admission itself. Hence Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally. 4] By order dated 25/3/2004, learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar dismissed the Application (Exh.U-1) filed on behalf of the complainant, for grant of adjournment. The learned Member, further passed an order of dismissing the Complaint in default. The complainant filed composite application for condonation of delay caused in filing application for restoration and for restoration of the Original Application which was filed on 28/9/2004. The delay of 270 days caused in 3 filing application for restoration was sought to be condoned. This application was opposed by the respondent-employer. 5] By an order dated 12/2/2009, Misc.Application ULP No. 11/2004 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Judge of the Industrial Court by holding that no sufficient cause was shown by the complainant for condonation of delay of 270 days and finally heard application for restoration. The Industrial Court found that there was no nexus between dismissal of the complaint and the resumption of duty by complainant on 23/8/2004. It was found that reason put forth for restoration does not appear to be sound. The certified copy of the order of dismissal was received by complainant on 27/8/2004 and the application for restoration was filed on 28/9/2004 after 30 days. On this background, application for condonation of delay and for restoration was dismissed. 6] Shri Barde, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned Member of the Industrial Court was influenced by the fact that the application was filed by the complainant on 28/9/2004 and the matter was fixed final hearing on 25/3/04. He submits that what is required to be seen by the Court is the period for which applicant could not prefer application for restoration. According to him, process of settlement of the dispute was going on between the complainant and employer as a result of which, complainant could not file application for 4 restoration. 7] As against this, Shri Hon, learned counsel for respondent submits that the Industrial Court found the fact that no sufficient cause was shown by the complainant for seeking condonation of delay.The finding recorded is based on appreciation of facts on record and the conduct of the complaint. 8] Perused the order passed by the Industrial Court. It may be true that the complainant remained absent on the date of hearing on earlier occasions. What is in question, is the order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration. Complaint was dismissed on 25/3/2004 and the application for restoration was filed on 28/9/2004. The case of the complainant is that he was allowed to resume duty on 25/8/2004 pursuant to the settlement arrived at between him and the employer. According to him, since he was not further allowed to continue on duty, he submitted application for certified copy which was received on 27/8/2004 and thereafter, he preferred application for restoration on 28/9/2004. The question is whether the explanation furnished by the complainant can be said to constitute the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is now well settled that the Courts have to consider applications for condonation of delay liberally to avoid injustice being caused to the litigants. What is relevant 5 is the explanation furnished for not preferring an appeal, within a period of limitation. In this case, complainant has furnished the explanation and it is not expected to furnish explanation of day-today. The earlier conduct is taken into consideration by the learned Member of the Industrial Court may not be relevant to determine whether sufficient cause is made out or not. The learned Member of Industrial Court while recording a finding that no sufficient cause has been made out, has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity resulting in failure of justice. Hence, in my view, the order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar rejecting application for condonation of delay, needs to be set aside. 9] In the result, the instant Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 12/2/2009 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar rejecting Miscellaneous ULP No.11/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. The delay caused in filing application for restoration is condoned. The Industrial Court is directed to consider the prayer for restoration of the application Complaint ULP No.241/1997 on its own merits in accordance with law. There shall however, be no order as to costs. [R.K. DESHPANDE, J.] umg/wp3925-09