1 W.P.No.7510/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7510 OF 2011. Vishwas S/o Govind Sapkale, Age 48 years, Occ.Nil, R/o 9, Indraprasthanagar, Near Milk Factory, Jalgaon, Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Petitioner. Versus The Commissioner, Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, Sardar Wallab Patel Towers, Nehru Chowk, Jalgaon. ... Respondent. ... Mr.K.C.Sant, advocate for the petitioner. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.10.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With 2 W.P.No.7510/11 the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner had filed complaint (IDA) No.7/2009. The same came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the said reference. The same was allowed on condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) within 15 days. It seems, the said cost was not deposited within the stipulated period. Therafter, the petitioner filed an application for extension of time to deposit the cost. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr.K.C.Sant, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Respondent inspite of service of notice, is absent. 4. The only question in the present Writ Petition is whether the Labour Court should have extended the period for depositng the cost. 3 W.P.No.7510/11 5. The Labour Court has already restored the complaint on condition that the petitioner deposits cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) within 15 days. The said order was passed on 13.7.2011. It seems that there was some communication gap between the petitioner and his advocate. As such the said cost could not be deposited. Thereafter, the application was made for extension of time to deposit the cost on 5.8.2011. The Labour Court on the very same day rejected the said application. The Court U/s 148 of the C.P.C. has ample power to extend the time in deserving cases. Here, the petitioner has stated the reasons for non-depositing of the cost. There was nothing on record to disbelieve the same. It seems only on the ground that the order was conditional one, the Labour Court has refrained from extending the time. 6. It ought to have been taken into consideration that the Reference was filed in respect of the right of the party concerning his service. The Court should have liberally 4 W.P.No.7510/11 construed the same. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall deposit the costs with the Labour Court within a period of four (4) weeks from today. 8. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp751011