JUDGMENT

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - Heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner and Dr. Saurabh Pande, learned counsel for the Respondent/BSP.

2. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPL No. 82 of 2019, by which the Appellant's substantive writ petition calling in question the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 12.02.2016 has been dismissed affirming the order of the Labour Court dated 16.07.2015 by which the Labour Court has declined to grant the application under Section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 filed by Appellant challenging his order of termination passed by the Respondent/BSP.

3. The Appellant herein was a regular employee of the BSP with effect from 31.12.1989. At the relevant point of time, he was Technician in the Department of Mechanical Maintenance of the said plant. He remained absent from June, 2009 to December, 2009 for which he was served with show cause notice on 19.05.2010 that he remained absent from duty without prior permission and sanction of leave and that is misconduct, which he has committed in terms of Standing Order of BSP (Absence from duty without prior permission and sanction of leave). The Appellant herein during the enquiry proceeding on 28.08.2010, admitted the charges and in view of the admission of charges by the Appellant, further enquiry was not conducted and the enquiry officer declared the enquiry proceeding to be completed and consequently, the Disciplinary Authority on 22.10.2010 considered the matter and decided to impose penalty of removal from service with immediate effect, which the Appellant questioned by filing an application under Section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court by its order dated 13.05.2015 held that charges of misconduct against the Appellant are fully established and postponed the matter for hearing on the question of punishment and ultimately, on 16.07.2015 rejected the application, finding that the punishment inflicted upon the Appellant is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is required. In turn, appeal has been taken by the Appellant herein which was affirmed by the Industrial Court on 12.02.2016. Any how, the Petitioner could not question the order of the Industrial Court right in time before the Writ Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and ultimately, he filed WPL No. 82 of 2017 on 18.03.2019. The learned Single Judge by its impugned order declined to interfere with the order of the Industrial Court on the ground that there is 3 years' delay in filing the writ petition which is now being assailed before this Court under Section 2(1) of Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

4. The Appellant is the person who stood terminated from service way back on 22.10.2012 though he preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court, in which he remained unsuccessful, but he could not prefer writ petition within reasonable period before this Court but in paragraph 7 of the reply to the writ petition, he has clearly stated that he was unwell after the order of the Industrial Court and he was not aware about the remedy available against the order of the Industrial Court and also on account of poor financial condition, he could not prefer writ petition right in time and therefore, delay occurred. The writ petition has been dismissed at the admission stage itself, there is no material on record to hold that delay is deliberate and on account of some mala fide act on the part of the Petitioner.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 held that if delay is not deliberate on account of some mala fide action on part of the person who has come to the Court seeking relief and is not on account of delaying tactic, then it is to be considered liberally.

6. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the Appella