1 W.P.No.386/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.386 OF 2010 1] Shri Keoba Namdeo Borse, Age, 52 years Occup. Unemployed, N-2/L-1/11/1, Shriramnagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad. And others .PETITIONERS VERSUS 1] M/S Candy Engineering,Now at present M/s Harman Fino Chem Ltd., Through its Managing Director Plot No. E-8, Chikalthana I.A., Aurangabad. .RESPONDENT ... Shri.J.N.Singh, Advocate for Petitioners. None appears for Respondents. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 23rd AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By this petition Under Article 227 of the 2 W.P.No.386/10 Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 29th September, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Misc. Application (IDA) No. 01 of 2007. FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER : 3. The services of the petitioners are retrenched by the respondent-Company on 31st July, 1987. The same was challenged by the petitioners, by filing the complaint (ULP) Nos. 231 of 1987 to 235 of 1987, in the Labour Court at Aurangabad. The said complaints were allowed by the Labour Court on 5th April, 1994, directing respondent-Company to reinstate the petitioners in service with continuity of their services and back wages. 4. As the respondent-Company failed to make payment as per order passed by the Labour Court, the petitioners preferred an application for recovery of money under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court 3 W.P.No.386/10 bearing Application (IDA) No. 56 of 1997. The said application was filed by the petitioners on 4th December, 1997. In the said application, Labour Court issued notice to the respondent, but the same was returned unserved. As petitioners failed to take any further steps for serving respondent, in application No. 56 of 1997, the Labour Court Aurangabad passed order on 30th April, 2001 dismissing the said application for want of taking proper steps. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Misc. Application (IDA) No.01 of 2007 on 4th April,2007 before the Labour Court for setting aside the order dated 30th April, 2001. Along with said application, the petitioners also preferred an application for condonation of 2065 days delay in filing the application for setting side the order dated 30th April, 2001. The application for condonation of delay rejected by the Labour Court on 29th September, 2009 holding that the petitioners have not taken any care of their 4 W.P.No.386/10 proceedings before the Court of law and failed to disclose any cogent reason. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29th September, 2009, petitioners preferred present Writ Petition on the ground that the learned Judge while deciding the application for condonation of delay, in setting aside the order of dismissal for want of proper steps, failed to consider the important legal aspect and settled law on that point to the effect that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have properly explained the delay in challenging the order of dismissal for want of proper steps. 7. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Judge appears to have been influenced by the number of days of the delay and failed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and rejected the application by cryptic order, which is clearly contrary to cannon of law and therefore liable to 5 W.P.No.386/10 be quashed and set aside. In view of these submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. 8. In the present case, though Labour Court passed order on 30th April,2001 dismissing the petitioners’ application for recovery of Money Under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner preferred an application for setting aside the order dated 30th April, 2001, on 4th May, 2007 i.e. after six years. In the application for condonation of delay in preferring the application of setting aside the order dated 30th April,2001 the petitioner stated that dismissal order was not brought to his notice by his Advocate till 15th March, 2007. The petitioners in para No. 6 of the application for condonation of delay stated that the petitioners repeatedly requested their Advocate for handing over the case papers for filing appropriate application. NO 6 W.P.No.386/10 where it is stated in the application that when petitioners contacted their advocate, whether they requested their Advocate in writing to handover the case papers, whether they wrote any letter asking about the status of their matter. Simply it is stated that they learnt about dismissal order dated 30th April,2001 on 15th March, 2007. This itself shows that the petitioners failed to disclose the sufficient reason for condonation of 2065 days delay. 9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act enables the Appellate Court to admit the appeal after prescribed period if the appellant-applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring appeal-application in time. It is satisfaction about sufficiency of cause, in not preferring application in time that confers jurisdiction on Court in condoning delay in filing the application. If applicant does not show sufficient cause, nor does the Court record the finding that cause shown by the applicant is 7 W.P.No.386/10 sufficient in not preferring application in time, the Court have no power to arbitrarily condone the delay in the matter. It is necessary for the Court to apply its mind to the cause shown by the applicant, to satisfy the cause so shown is sufficient or not. In the present case the Labour Court specifically recorded in the order dated 29th September, 2009 that petitioners have not taken care of their own proceedings before the Court of law. The Court further recorded that the petitioners failed to show sufficient reason for condonation of 2065 days delay. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bonafides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time barred application. Our High Court in the matter of Kamalbai Narsaiyya Shrimal and another Vs. Ganpat Vitthalrao Gavare reported in 2007(1) Bom.C.R.51 held: “Merely because there is no intentional delay can not be a ground for condonation, because 8 W.P.No.386/10 no one will intentionally cause delay.” The Court further held : “15.The expression “Sufficient Cause” can not be erased from section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. I do not find any such ”Sufficient Cause” stated in the application and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for.” 10. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that since beginning the petitioners were negligent in prosecuting their own case, though the Labour Court passed the order on their application for recovery of money Under section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. In 1998 they failed to 9 W.P.No.386/10 take proper steps to serve the respondent till 2001. Though, their application dismissed for want of prosecution on 30th April 2001, they preferred application for setting aside the order as late as on 4th May, 2007 i.e. after six years. In their application, for condonation of delay they failed to disclose any cogent reason why there was delay of 2065 days in filing application for setting aside the order of dismissal in default dated 30th April,2001. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order dated 29th September, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] MTK