1. In this Writ Petition, order dated 17.03.2015 passed in I.D. No. 6/2014 by the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru, Annexure-A is impugned.

2. A claim petition filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D. Act) came to be filed on 13.02.2014 by the respondent herein, questioning termination letter dated 11.02.2009 – Annexure-O. An interlocutory application under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 151 CPC – Annexure-P came to be filed seeking for condonation of the delay of 730 days in filing the claim petition. Said application having been allowed by the impugned order has been called in question by the employer-Management in this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. K. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri. Venkataramana Uppada, respondent appearing in person.

4. It is the contention of Sri. K. Kasturi, learned Senior counsel appearing for writ petitioner that Labour Court is not vested with the power to condone the delay under Section 2A(2) or under Section 10(4A) of the I.D. Act when claim petition is filed beyond three years from date of dismissal or discharge and as such application for condonation of delay filed by employee ought to have been dismissed by the Labour Court. He would elaborate his submission by contending sub-section (3) of Section 2A of I.D. Act mandates that an workman can make an application before expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise as provided under sub-section (1) and there being a delay of 5 years 2 days in filing the claim petition from the date of termination, Labour Court ought not to have condoned the delay. He would also submit that registry of the Labour Court itself had raised office objection with regard to maintainability of claim petition as noted in the order sheet Annexure-R and as such Labour Court ought to have sustained said office objection and it ought not to have condoned the delay in filing the claim petition by allowing the application filed by the respondent for condonation of delay. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition and rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the claim petition.

In support of his submissions, he has relied upon following Judgments:-

(1) Sri. Amar Chand Inani vs. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 115

(2) Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 455

(3) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Zakir Hussain, (2005) 7 SCC 447

(4) Damodaran Pillai and Others vs. South Indian Bank Limited, (2005) 7 SCC 300

(5) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Arun Kumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye and Another, (2007) 1 SCC 283

(6) Foreshore Coop. Housing Society Ltd. vs. Praveen D. Desai, (2015) 6 SCC 412

(7) Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and Others vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav and Others, AIR 1966 SC 153

(8) Pyare Lal Sharma vs. Managing Director, Jammu and Kashmir Industries Ltd. and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1854

(9) KSRTC vs. Abdul Azeez, (2004) 107 FJR 155 (KAR)

(10) Executive Engineer and Others vs. Lokesh Reddy and Others, 2003 (3) LLJ 118

(11) Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP vs. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, 1975 (2) Laws (SC) 4

(12) Executive Engineer BRLBC Division, Shivamogga vs. Lokesh Reddy, 2003 (4) Laws (KAR) 5

(13) Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam, 2005 (2) Laws (SC) 87

(14) Rukmini Bai and Others vs. Divisional Controller NEKRTC, Bidar, ILR 2013 (KAR) 1024

(15) Nityanand M. Joshi and Others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, (1969) 2 LLJ 711

(16) State of Karnataka vs. Sri. K. Veergowda, W.P. No. 18723 of 2015, dated 01.06.2015

(17) P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Another, (1997) 7 SCC 556

5. Per contra, Sri. Venkataramana Uppada, respondent – party-in-person would support the impugned order