- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.110 OF 2008 PETITION NO.110 OF 2008 PETITION NO.110 OF 2008 M/s.Jalan Dyeing and Bleaching Mills ...Petitioners vs. Bajinath Bhajan Yadav (since deceased through L.Rs.) 1A. Suresh Bajinath Yadav 1B. Banshraji Bajinath Yadav 1C. Shitladevi Bajinath Yadav ...Respondents Mr.Kiran Bapat i/b M/s.Desai & Desai Associates for the petitioners Mr.V.P.Vaidya for the respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 9,2008 : APRIL 9,2008 : APRIL 9,2008 JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. Considering the limited controversy involved in this petition, the same is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11th September 2007 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Bombay. By the impugned Judgment and order, an application for condonation of delay caused in preferring an Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 2nd April 2005 passed by the Labour Court has been rejected. The delay in preferring the Appeal was of about one year. The learned - 2 - Member of the Industrial Court, Mumbai held that there was no reasonable cause for condonation of delay. The learned Judge was of the view that the explanation offered by the Petitioner in the application for condonation of delay was not good enough warranting the condonation of delay of about one year. The learned Member was of the view that the petitioner was aware of the impugned order as reflected from the copy of notice dated 9th June 2005 issued by the original Respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and submitted that the learned Member of the tribunal ought to have taken a liberal view of the matter. He submitted that if necessary, the Petitioner could have been put to terms. The learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned Judgment and order by contending that there was no sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay and the learned Member was justified in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay. 4. I have considered the submissions. One of the grounds set out for condonation of delay is that the shifting of the activities of the petitioner-mills was commenced in February 2003. It is stated that the Manager and the Labour Officer of the Company remained occupied in the work of shifting. Manufacturing activities were being shifted from Bombay to New - 3 - Bombay. It is contended that the Manager and the Labour Officer of the Petitioner were not reporting to duties from March 2006. It is stated that in the process of shifting of the manufacturing activities, due to oversight, steps could not be taken for preferring the Appeal. It is submitted that the delay is unintentional and there is no negligence on the part of the Petitioner. 5. It is well settled law that a liberal approach is required to be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. On perusal of the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, it is not possible to attribute any negligence on the part of the petitioner. There are two reasons given by the Petitioner. One is that process of shifting the manufacturing activities was in progress and the second reason is that the concerned Manager and Labour Officer were not reporting to duties from March 2006. For challenging the Judgment and Order dated 2nd April 2005 passed by the Labour Court, an Appeal along with the application for condonation of delay was filed on 29th July 2006. This was a case where the learned Member of the tribunal ought to have taken a liberal view of the matter. Prejudice, if any, to the opponent could have been compensated by ordering payment of costs. Hence, the Petition must succeed. However, the petitioner will have to compensate the Respondent by paying costs. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.7,500/-. - 4 - 6. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and order dated 11th September 2007 is quashed and set aside and application for condonation of delay bearing No.IC No.35/2006 stands allowed subject to condition of the Petitioner paying costs in the sum of Rs.7,500/- to the Respondent within a period of four weeks from today. The deposit of the amount in this court within stipulated period will be treated as a sufficient compliance.Payment of costs will be a condition precedent. The learned counsel for the Respondents states that the entire amount payable by way of costs be paid to the Respondent No.1-A viz.Mr.Suresh Baijinath Yadav. Order accordingly. ii) If the compliance is made within stipulated period with the order regarding payment of costs, the Industrial Court will register the Appeal and will proceed in accordance with law. iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. iv) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. - 5 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE