1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8352 OF 2009 M.S.R.T.C. ....Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Transport Kamgar Sanghatana ....Respondent Mr.G.S. Hegde for the Petitioner. Mr.M.S. Topkar for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. By the impugned order, the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the Part-II award passed on 6.6.2006, was dismissed. 3. It is true that there is a delay of more than three months. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the application ought to have been allowed. The Petitioner had been conducting the entire dispute with adequate diligence for almost twenty years. The dispute is between the Petitioner and an employee S.R. Chavan, who was a bus conductor. The complaint against him was regarding his not having issued tickets to the passengers though he had collected money for the same. The incident pertains to the year 1988. The Petitioner had after holding the 2 enquiry, which incidentally has been held to be unfair in the Part-I award, imposed the penalty of stopping five increments with cumulative effect. The employee had filed a complaint being Complaint No.74 of 1993. The same was dismissed by an order and judgment dated 9.7.1996 by the Industrial Court. It was held that the complaint is not maintainable by an individual worker. Thereafter the Union i.e. the Respondent filed a Complaint being Complaint No.34 of 1995 in which the impugned order has been passed. The Petitioner had appeared throughout proceedings including when the Part-I award dated 6.1.2005 was argued and passed albeit unsuccessful. 4. These facts indicate that the Petitioner had been prosecuting the entire matter diligently. The lapse on the Petitioner’s part commenced thereafter. The Petitioner’s explanation is that its Labour Officer one Mr.Pawar had met with an accident and that its officer one Phadnis who was looking after the complaint was transferred on administrative grounds, leading to the matter being ignored during this period. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit of said Pawar regarding his accident. Though the medical certificates have not been filed, I see no reason to disbelieve the affidavit. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is set-aside. The delay in filing the application for setting aside the Part -II award dated 6.6.2006 is condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The parties shall in the first instance appear before the Industrial Court on 22.2.2010 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter as directed by the Industrial Court.