WP/8550/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8550 OF 2010 Balasaheb Shyamrao Shewale ... Petitioner V/s. The Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Singh for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 10 TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai on 23rd March, 2010 dismissing the Application (ULP) No.85 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing his complaint. The complaint has been filed under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner has contended that a resignation was extracted from him, forcibly, by the respondent-Bank. He has contended that due to the illness of his daughter, who expired on 3rd November, 2007, and that of his father, who expired on 22nd July, 2009, he could not file the complaint within the period of limitation of 90 days of the occurrence of the unfair labour practice. He has also pleaded that he suffered a mental shock after his daughter expired on 3rd November, 2007. Both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have refused to condone the delay, WP/8550/2010 2 principally because no medical certificates were filed by the petitioner. 3. In this Petition the petitioner has pleaded that his daughter was suffering from Tuberculosis for a prolonged period of time due to which she ultimately expired in 2007. No affidavit denying the same has been filed by the respondent- Bank. As regards his father’s illness he has stated that he was required to travel to Karad frequently to tend to his father who was ailing from 2004. A certificate from one Dr. Avinash Patil has been produced indicating that the petitioner’s father was under his treatment from 23rd May, 2004 as he was suffering from Hyperglycemia. The petitioner’s father has also expired in 2009. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, on obtaining instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, states that the petitioner is willing to forego the back-wages for the period from 2004 to 2007, in case he succeeds before the Labour Court. This statement is accepted. Considering the circumstances which the petitioner was facing at the time when he claims that a forcible resignation was obtained by the respondent-Bank from him, the delay is condoned. 5. The complaint shall be registered and numbered. It shall be heard on merits. 6. The Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. 7. No order as to costs.