1 W.P.No.4610/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4610 OF 2011. Nanabhau S/o Shahaji Ghorpade, Age 45 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Sarate Ozar, Post Ranjani, Tq. & Dist.Jalna. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office at Mayfair Tower, Pune-Mumbai Road, Wakdewadi, Pune-5. 2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Adalat Road, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.A.More, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.H.Jobanputra, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2011. 2 W.P.No.4610/11 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present petitioner had filed a complaint before the Labour Court, along with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Revision. The Industrial Court dismissed the Revision. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.More, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts have taken a hyper-technical approach while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The authorities have not taken into consideration the reasons stated for the delay. The substantive right of the petitioner may not be taken away on 3 W.P.No.4610/11 this ground. The learned counsel contends that even the certificate of the Doctor which is produced along with the petition could not be produced before the Labour Court and the petitioner be given an opportunity to produce the same. 5. Mr.Jobanputra, learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the Courts have appreciated all the facts and arrived at the correct conclusion. It is a case of total negligence on the part of the petitioner in filing complaint. The petitioner can not get premium over his negligence. According to the learned counsel, there was no impediment for the petitioner to produce the said medical certificate before the Labour Court. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The authorities on the ground that the petitioner could not show the sufficient cause has rejected the application. The petitioner has produced in the present petition the certificate of the 4 W.P.No.4610/11 Doctor showing that his son was under treatment. The said document was not before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court while considering the application for condonation of delay. 7. In view of the fact that substantive right of the petitioner is involved and he being non-suited on the ground of delay, I think it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest the application for condonation of delay by producing the medical certificate. 8. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the Labour Court who shall decide the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner afresh on its own merits. The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce the additional documents in support of his application for condonation of delay. The Respondent shall have right to file additional say. 5 W.P.No.4610/11 9. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp4610.11