Smt. Rukmini Murlidhar Tekale And ORS. v. Shri. Santosh Suryakant Shaha And ORS.
58-caf-1065-2014 in fast-22634-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1065 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.22634 OF 2013 Smt.Rukmini Murlidhar Tekale & Ors.
...Applicants NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2022.12.14 10:55:17 +0530
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Smt.Rukmini Murlidhar Tekale & Ors.
...Appellants
Versus
Shri.Santosh Suryakant Shaha & Ors.
....Respondents ---- Mr.B.G. Ligade i/b Mr.Drupad Patil for the Applicants/Appellants.
Mr.Prasad B. Kulkarni, for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. ---- CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J.
DATE : 12 DECEMBER 2022 P.C:- .
Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
2.
The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has challenged the impugned order passed by Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Jalna, Camp-Solapur. The Applicant could not prefer the Appeal within stipulated time, as the Applicant has no source of N.S. Kamble page 1 of 2
58-caf-1065-2014 in fast-22634-2013.doc income and thereafter she engaged an Advocate but the said Advocate was busy with his family function, hence there is delay of 128 days for filing the Appeal and requested to allow the Application.
3.
The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 strenuously objected to allow the Application on the ground that no sufficient reasons are given for condonation of delay. 4.
I have heard both the learned counsel.
5.
The Applicants claim under workmens'
compensation is rejected by the Judge labour Court, Camp at Solapur. The Applicants are legal heirs of the deceased workmen. The Applicants are from poor family.
6.
Considering the submission and the reasons mentioned in the Application and in the interest of justice the Application is allowed.
7.
The delay of 128 days for filing the Appeal is condoned.
8.
The Appeal be registered.
(S.G. DIGE, J.) N.S. Kamble page 2 of 2