1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.274 OF 2003 Bechu Shankar Singh. ...Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Raymond Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. A. V. Chatuphule i/b. Mr.A.L. Gore for the Petitioner. Mr. A. V. Joshi i/b. Mrs.Meena H. Doshi for the Respondents. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 22, 2008. P.C.: The Petitioner came to be employed by the First Respondent in 1989 and was working as a Wool Sorter. The case of the Petitioner is that in 1995 he had proceeded on medical leave for a period of two months from 2nd September 1995 to 2nd November 1995. According to the Petitioner, on 3rd November 1995, when he reported for duty, he was not allowed to resume. On 4th December 1995, the Petitioner was served with a chargesheet, the allegation of 2 misconduct being that of unauhorised absence. According to the Petitioner, it was on 16th/17th April 1996 that he was allowed to resume duties. On 2nd February 1997, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and in pursuance of the finding that was arrived at in the disciplinary enquiry, a penalty of four days' suspension was imposed. The Petitioner was placed under suspension between 31st January 1998 and 3rd February 1998. The Petitioner instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices being Complaint (ULP) 5 of 1998 before the Industrial Court on 8th September 1998. An application for condonation of delay was filed before the Industrial Court on 14th June 2002. The application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 2nd September 2002. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that sufficient grounds for condonation were indicated in the application filed before the Industrial Court. A perusal of the record would show that in the application for condonation, the Petitioner had stated that during the period of enquiry, he was guided by his defence representative and that after imposition of the punishment, 3 the defence representative had instructed him to wait for some period of time in order to enable him to find a workable solution to the dispute. According to the workman, it was in September 1998 that the defence representative informed that there was no possibility of a settlement upon which steps were taken to institute a complaint. Due to oversight, it was submitted, an application for condonation of delay was not filed together with the complaint when it was instituted. The Petitioner adduced evidence in support of the application for condonation of delay and was duly cross-examined. The second witness who deposed on his behalf was his defence representative, A.S. Phadnis. The Industrial Court has adopted a rather technical view of the matter in declining to condone the delay. The case of the Petitioner was that after the punishment was imposed upon him on 6th January 1998, he was being guided by his defence representative. The defence representative also stated that discussions took place between him and the management and that subsequently, in November or December 1998, the Petitioner had taken back all the 4 papers from him. The complaint was instituted on 6th September 1998 which is suggestive of the fact that there was no negligence or want of bona fides on the part of the Petitioner. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent relied upon the admissions in the course of cross-examination by the Petitioner to the effect that the delay was caused by his negligence. Stray statements in the cross-examination cannot, be the sole guiding factor in the present case. The delay has, in my view, been satisfactorily explained if an over all view is taken of the grounds set out in the application for condonation and the oral evidence on record. The fact that the complaint was instituted in the month of September 1998 would show that the Petitioner was pursuing his remedy and there was no deliberate inaction on his part. There is no reason to reject merit in the submission that an application for condonation of delay remained to be filed through inadvertence at the time when the complaint was lodged. The interests of justice would warrant that the Petitioner should have an opportunity of contesting the Complaint on merits. The delay has been satisfactorily explained. 5 The impugned order dated 15th September 2002 is accordingly quashed and set aside. The application filed by the Petitioner, Exhibit U-8, for condonation of delay shall stand allowed. The complaint shall accordingly stand restored to the file of the Industrial Court which shall hear and dispose of the complaint on merits. All the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ......