W.P. No.7465 OF 2007 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7465 OF 2007 Usha Vinay Kulkarni ... Petitioner V/s. The Karad Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. & anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.D. Patil for Petitioner Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 8, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court, Kolhapur in Miscellaneous Application (ULP) No.42 of 2005 and the order of the Industrial Court passed in a revision application. The Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in preferring a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. That order has been confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision. The petitioner has been working as a clerk with the respondent Bank since 1985. It appears that a chargesheet was issued against her and after an enquiry, she was issued an order dismissing her from service w.e.f. 1.2.2003. The petitioner questioned the order of dismissal issued to her by writing to the respondent bank on 6.2.2003. On 24.3.2003, the District Deputy Registrar, Sangli appointed under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act informed her by a letter dated 24.3.2003 that she should prefer proceedings before the Labour Court. It appears that the complaint was filed by the petitioner on 13.7.2004. Since there was a delay in filing the complaint, she also preferred an application for condoning the delay. That application has been rejected W.P. No.7465 OF 2007 : 2 : by the Labour Court. The order has been confirmed by the Industrial Court and hence, the present petition. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was unaware of the legal remedies that she could avail of. Besides this, she was not able to raise finances or get proper legal advice for prosecuting her case. It is in these circumstances that there has been some delay and therefore according to the learned advocate the delay ought to be condoned. The learned advocate for the respondent bank submits that no sufficient reasons have been made out by the petitioner and therefore, the application has rightly been dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner is not an illiterate woman as tried to be made out in the application. In fact she has passed the two years of law and, therefore, according to the learned advocate, she could have approached the Labour Court well within the period of limitation. 3. It is true that the District Deputy Registrar had informed the petitioner by his letter dated 29.5.2003 that her remedy was to file a complaint before the Labour Court challenging the order of dismissal issued to her. From May 2003, when this letter was issued till she filed the complaint, according to the petitioner she has approached the Directors of the bank for redressal of her grievance.. Besides this, she has stated that she did not have the wherewithal to challenge the dismissal order before the Labour Court. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr. vIs. Katiji & Drs., 1987 II CLR 92 that the approach of the Courts should be liberal while condoning the delay. The Supreme Court has observed thus: 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. W.P. No.7465 OF 2007 : 3 : 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 5. In my opinion, the Labour court and the Industrial Court have erroneously not condoned the delay. Sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner for condoning the same. However, since there is a delay, it shall be condoned subject to payment of costs. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent Bank within four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the costs are not paid, the decisions of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court will revive. 7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, civil application NO.543 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.