"Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010256622025 2026:GAU-AS:4167- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3750/2025 THE ASSAM CHAH KARMACHARI SANGHA AND JORHAT CIRCLE, P.O. JORHAT, DISTRICT-JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785001. 2: SHRI ANIL SAIKIA S/O LATE PADMA NATH SAIKIA VILLAGE P.O. DHEKIA-KHOWA DISTRICT-JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78511 VERSUS MS KAKODONGA TEA ESTATE PVT LTD AND 2 ORS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.B. ROAD, JORHAT-785001, DISTRICT- JORHAT. 2:THE MANAGEMENT OF KAKODONGA TEA ESTATE P.O. GOTONGA DISTRICTJORHAT. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. A BHATTACHARYYA, MS. A SULTANA,MR. P KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S BANIKYA(R1,2),MR. M GOGOI(R1,2),MR. N DEKA(R1,2) Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 2/4 For the Applicants :- Ms. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel, Mr. P. Kalita, learned counsel For the opposite party/ respondent :- Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel Mr. S. Banikya, learned counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 23-03-2026 (A.D. Choudhury, J) 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of the delay of 74 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal against the judgment & order (Cav) dated 19.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5180/2014. 2. The aforenoted writ petition was filed by the respondents/opposite parties assailing the Award dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 3/2010. The learned Single Judge under its judgment & order (Cav) dated 19.05.2025 (supra), allowed the aforenoted writ petition. 3. In paragraph No. 4 of this application, the applicants have cited the reasons for delay in preferring the connected Writ Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 3/4 4. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, though sufficient cause shall not mean a mere explanation given superficially. 5. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicants have sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and have been able to substantiate that due to illness of wife of the applicant No.2, they were prevented from approaching the Court promptly and within the prescribed period of limitation. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona-fide or inaction on the part of the applicants. 6. Based on the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the applicants were not diligent or that the delay was intentional. 7. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicants, this Court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected Writ Appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona-fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicants. In the absence of gross latches or mala-fide intention attributable to the applicants, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 8. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondents by such delay. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties submits that he has no instruction to oppose the present application. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 4/4 10. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay of 74 days, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. 11. The instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed off. 12. The Registry to process the connected appeal and, if the same is found defect free, shall list the same under the appropriate heading, preferably on 25.05.2026. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant Printed from counselvise.com "