1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 275/2010 Sakharam Tulshiram Nayadekar -: versus :- Akola District Supervision Coop. Society Ltd. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 09, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri A.S. Mehadia, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri A.P. Tathod, learned counsel for respondent. The learned Member of the Industrial Court by the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2009 set aside the order of Labour Court in Misc. U.L.P No. 17/2004. By the said order dated 31.03.2005 the learned Labour Court has found that no case was made out to set aside the ex-parte judgment dated 08.03.2004 delivered by it on 02.02.2001. That complaint was filed by present respondent assailing his termination vide order dated 09.07.2001. It is not in dispute that on 30.06.2002 he attained the age of superannuation. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Industrial court shows that the Industrial Court has been influenced more by merits of the controversy. It has found that though the employee had retired on 30.06.2002 the 2 relief of reinstatement was given to him and that was a perverse and erroneous finding. Shri Mehadia, learned counsel contends that in such circumstances, the well reasoned order of Labour Court could not have been set aside. He points out that the order passed by the Labour Court is dated 08.03.2004 and application to set aside is filed on 18.10.2004 without any prayer to condone the delay. There was office objection raised in that respect and no attention was paid to that objection. Shri Tathod, learned counsel for respondent sole on the other hand states that the technical requirement of filing application for condonation of delay cannot deny the justice to respondent and the Industrial Court has in revision correctly interfered with the order after noticing that the relief granted by the Labour Court itself was unsustainable. It is well settled law that in such matters before Labour Court or Industrial Court it is not necessary to file application for condonation of delay along with the proceedings and if the matter is to be dismissed as barred by limitation, the Court has to give opportunity to the applicant / complainant pointing out that the matter is being dismissed as there is no prayer for condonation of delay. The Labour Court has not followed that course of action. Perusal of judgment delivered by the Industrial Court on 12.10.2009 shows that it has adopted a particular course of action after noticing the retirement on 30.06.2002 and to avoid second round of litigation. It has however awarded only cost of Rs. 5000/- to the present petitioner. The Industrial Court in revision found that the approach of Labour Court in its 3 judgment dated 08.03.2004 delivered in ULPA Complaint itself was not in accordance with the law and hence has interfered with the same. In this situation, in view of the admitted fact that petitioner had attained age of superannuation on 30.06.2002 and presently he is about 65 years of age, I find that interest of justice can be met with by directing the respondent to pay him additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- and to deposit 50% of the amount to which is entitled as per the judgment of Labour Court dated 08.03.2004 with the office of the Labour Court. The amount of cost be paid to the petitioner by 7th May, 2010 and 50% of the amount as awarded be deposited with the office of the Labour Court by 21st May, 2010. If the cost is paid and amount is so deposited, Labour Court shall attempt to decide the ULP Complaint No.220/2001 on merits, as early as possible and in any case by 31.08.2010. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 10.05.2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. In view of this order, the grievance made in this petition does not survive. The same is disposed of . JUDGE Rgd.