WP/7819/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7819 OF 2010 D.G. Jagade & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. M/s.Bombay Wire Ropes Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.P.M. Pradhan a/w P.M. Mokashi for Petitioners Mr.Sudhir Talsani with A.K. Jalisatgi and Ms.Kavita Shelke for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 23, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Industrial Court dismissing their application condoning the delay. The Industrial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that sufficient reasons were not mentioned in the application for condoning the delay. 2. A perusal of the application indicates that some settlements were arrived at by the respondent employer with individual workers. The workers were not explained the import of the settlements. They were made to sign the settlements in the office of a local Corporator in 2006. Later in January 2008, they learnt from other workers who had not signed the settlements that each of them had received Rs.420,000/- by way of settlement. According to the petitioners, therefore, they had been deceived into accepting the settlements in March 2006 for a paltry amount. WP/7819/2010 : 2 : 3. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record has held that the reasons mentioned in the application did not disclose any sufficient or good case for approaching the Court after 2 years and 15 days. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the pleadings as well as the impugned order. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has embarked on a consideration of the merits of the workers’ case as to whether it could be said that they had been deceived in fact in March 2006. The Industrial Court ought to have confined itself only to ascertain the issue whether the workers had made out a sufficient cause for approaching the Court late. The workers have in their applications stated that after they signed the settlement in March 2006, they learnt only in January 2008 that 28 employees who had not signed the settlement had been paid Rs.420,000/- each. It is in these circumstances that the present complaint was filed. 5. In my opinion, the petitioners have made out sufficient cause for filing the complaint after two years and 15 days. They in fact learned of the receipt of a higher amount by other workers only in January 2008 and the complaint has been filed soon thereafter. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Delay in filing the complaint is condoned. 6. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.