Absence of separate delay condonation application cannot preclude adjudication of industrial disputes on merits.

The petitioner, a Class IV employee of the respondent corporation, filed Reference IT No. 34 of 2024 seeking pension benefits upon reaching superannuation.

Due to severe illness and eye treatment, the petitioner failed to file a 'statement of claim' or attend proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the reference for non-prosecution in 2025.

The petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 10 of 2025 for restoration under Section 26A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947, which was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on December 9, 2025, primarily because a separate application for condonation of delay was not filed.

The petitioner subsequently challenged this dismissal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in dismissing the restoration application on the technical ground of absence of a separate delay condonation application, notwithstanding the substantive claim for pension benefits.

Whether the interest of justice warrants remanding the matter for adjudication on merits despite earlier procedural lapses by the petitioner.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court’s discretionary power to ensure justice.

Section 26A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947, which governs the restoration of proceedings.

The overriding legal principle that cases should ideally be decided on their merits rather than dismissed on technicalities or non-prosecution, provided the defaults can be cured.

The Court observed that the petitioner is a retired Class IV employee seeking fundamental post-retirement benefits (pension). While acknowledging the petitioner’s lack of vigilance in failing to file a statement of claim until 2025, the Court noted that the reference was never decided on its merits.

It reasoned that procedural lapses—specifically the failure to file a separate delay condonation application—should not permanently bar a litigant from a hearing on substantive rights.

To balance the petitioner's rights with the respondent's interest in timely litigation, the Court determined that a "last chance" was necessary but must be bound by strict timelines.

The Court ordered that Reference IT No. 34 of 2024 be restored to its original file and directed the petitioner to file his 'statement of claim' within one month, the respondent to reply within 15 days, and the Tribunal to decide the matter within one year.