1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3331 OF 2009 Raghunath S/o Ramkrishna Jadhav Age : 50 years, Occ : Agri., R/o At Post. Dhoksal, Tq.Badnapur, Dist. Jalna. ..Petitioner V/s 1. The Labour Court Judge, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. 2. Kisan S/o Deorao Gawane Age : 37 years, Occ : Labour, R/o Badnapur, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna. 3. K.U. Pawar Age : 50 years, Occ : Business, R/o Pawar Chamber, Old Mondha, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. ..Respondents ... Mr.A.R. Borulkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.B. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... (CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J.) DATE : 10th December, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri.A.R. Borulkar, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Shri.K.B. Jadhav, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. 2 2. Rule. 3. With consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition raises challenge to the order passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jalna in Misc. W.C. (Delay) No.10/2004. The petitioner contend that he was impleaded as respondent in Workmen Compensation Application No.5/2001. Application was presented by the respondent no.2-workmen claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of injury sustained during the accident, which according to the workmen, had taken place during continuance of his employment with the petitioner. It is contended that the notice of the application and copy of the claim petition was not received by the petitioner herein. The respondent- employer’s matter was proceeded before the Commissioner for workmen compensation in the absence of employer, and after considering the relevant aspects, the learned Judge of the Labour Court decided application, and was pleased to direct payment of 3 compensation to tune of Rs.1,55,736.90 paise along with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident till its realisation. The final order was passed by the trial Court on 23.08.2002. After gaining knowledge, employer approached the Labour Court, with an application, seeking review of the order. The petitioner herein-employer also presented an application seeking condonation of delay occurred in presenting the review application. It is contended in the application, seeking condonation of delay, that the wife of the employer was not keeping good health, and as such, he could not prosecute the litigation. The order which has been passed by the Labour Court is exparte, and same is required to be quashed and set aside. The applicant prays for extending of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, as well as, considering the opposition leveled by the respondent- workmen to application tendered by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, the trial Court rejected the same. 3. I have perused application, as well as, 4 interim order passed by the trial Court. It is to be noted that the petitioner-employer has to be saddled with costs and also needs to be directed to deposit compensation of Rs.1,55,736.90 paise along with interest. The order that has been passed by the Labour Court is exparte and without considering the contentions of the respondents. In these circumstances, the respondent-employer is to be extended an opportunity to submit his case before the trial Court. So far as aspect of delay in approaching Court while tendering the review application is concerned, it is to be noted that the trial Court in its order has observed that the wife of the petitioner was not keeping good health till 25.03.2003. The certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 27.11.2003, and thereafter, he approached the Court, after lapse of four months. According to the learned trial Judge, there is no explanation in respect of causing of delay for four months in approaching the Court. The Counsel for the petitioner contend that after receipt of the copy of the judgment, he tried to contact his Advocate, and after securing the advise from Advocate, he approached 5 the Court. 4. Considering all relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that the delay of four months occurred in approaching the Court, for presentation of review, can not be said to be inordinate delay. So far as hardship suffered by the employee is concerned, it is necessary to direct the employer to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court within specified time. The trial Court also needs to be directed to decide the application afresh within specified time, after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Considering these relevant facts, I am of the opinion that the matter can be directed to be reconsidered by the trial Court on condition of petitioner’s depositing an amount of Rs.1,55,736.90 paise before the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The order passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jalna dated 06.08.2008 seeking condonation of delay in presenting the review application bearing No.10/2004 is quashed and set aside. The trial Judge is directed to consider the review application on its own merits 6 and in accordance with the law, subject to the condition in respect of deposit of an amount of Rs. 1,55,736.90 paise by the petitioner herein before the Court below within a period of 3 months from today. In the event of failure to deposit the amount within stipulated period, the order passed in this petition shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The trial Court is directed to consider the review application subject to observance of condition in respect of deposit of an amount, within six months. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE GAS/wp3331.09