ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the submissions.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.06.2024 in Miscellaneous Application No.17 of 2022 below Exh.6, whereby the learned Labour Court, Godhra has dismissed the delay condonation application filed by the present petitioner.

3. In the present case, the respondent was working as a nurse with the petitioner from 02.12.1967. She superannuated on 31.10.2000. Thereafter, the respondent has preferred an application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” for short) being Recovery Application No.12 of 2012, claiming retiral and other admissible benefits along with difference of wages in terms of the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. The respondent claimed an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- from the petitioner establishment. It was contended that the petitioners had already paid an amount of Rs.69,984/- to the respondent, and therefore, the respondent was claiming an amount of Rs.3,44,016/- in a recovery application. That by order dated 16.07.2014, the learned Labour Court was pleased to allow the Recovery Application No.12 of 2012 in favor of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent has preferred an application under Section 33 C(1) of the ID Act being Recovery Application No.13 of 2014. The learned Labour Court, Godhra, was pleased to pass an order dated 17.07.2017 in the Recovery Application No.13 of 2014 and issued a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.3,48,517/-. The petitioner thereafter has filed Miscellaneous Application No.17 of 2022 for restoration of the Recovery Application No.12 of 2012 and setting aside of the order dated 16.07.2014 and along with the said miscellaneous application, the petitioner preferred delay condonation application No.17 of 2022. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the delay condonation application.

4. A perusal of the said delay application shows that the only reason given by the petitioners for condonation of delay is that they were unaware of the proceedings in the recovery application and the orders passed therein. It is further contended that the concerned person, one Mr. Mukeshkumar T. Shah, who was the Secretary of the petitioner Trust, was looking after the legal matters and that he has expired during Covid-19 pandemic on 07.05.2021. It is, thereafter, submitted that the petitioners came to know about the recovery certificate and the proceedings only after receipt of the notice dated 24.06.2022 and 15.07.2022 and that they immediately filed the application for restoration of the Recovery Application No.12 of 2012 along with the delay condonation application. The impugned order records that no satisfactory explanation has been rendered for condonation of such a long delay of more than 10 years and accordingly, the delay condonation application has been dismissed.

5. In a recent judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (dead) by Lrs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and ors. in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025, it has been held thus:-

“124. The burden to establish sufficient cause lies upon the party seeking condonation, and the court must be satisfied that the cause is real, bona fide, and free of negligence. Sufficiency of cause is to be determined contextually, on the totality of circumstances, with due regard to the conduct of the applicant and the prejudice caused to the opposite party. The inquiry is not mechanical but principled, resting on the dual pillars of bona fides and diligence.

xxx xxx xxx

126. Courts must not condone gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or casual indifference, for to do so would undermine the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and destabilise the certainty that limitation law seeks to secure.

xxx xxx xxx

129. Delay by itself is not inherently indicative of negligence. In certain cases, unavoidable circumstances such as illness,