Delay was condoned where applicants asserted parity with similarly situated employees and offered a non-wholly unacceptable explanation.

The applicants, casual labourers of the North Eastern Railway, claimed parity with persons who had obtained regularisation pursuant to decisions in O.A. No. 63 of 1996, Ashwini Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., and O.A. No. 1398 of 2001, Chhotey Lal Giri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. They asserted that they subsequently came to know of the regularisation granted in those cases and that certain junior casual labourers had also been engaged, giving rise to a cause of action for approaching the Tribunal

The Original Application had initially been allowed by the Tribunal on 29 September 2014. The respondents challenged that order before the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 15083 of 2015. By order dated 7 May 2018, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed it to first decide the issue of limitation. Pursuant to that direction, the Tribunal considered the applicants’ application for condonation of delay. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the applicants were “fence-sitters” and that the cause of action had arisen as early as 1989.

1. Whether the applicants had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the Original Application so as to justify condonation of delay?

2. Whether the applicants’ claim of parity with the beneficiaries of O.A. Nos. 63 of 1996 and 1398 of 2001 required examination on merits rather than rejection at the limitation stage?

The Tribunal applied the general principles governing condonation of delay and substantial justice.

It held that, at the stage of deciding a delay-condonation application, the merits of the substantive claim need not be examined in detail, particularly where refusal to condone delay would non-suit the applicants without adjudication of their claim.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that a plausible and bona fide explanation, viewed in the overall facts and circumstances, may justify condonation where the delay is not shown to be deliberate or wilful.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants’ explanation—that they were unaware of the earlier litigation and the subsequent regularisation of similarly situated casual labourers—could not be characterised as wholly unacceptable or devoid of substance.

Although the respondents argued that the applicants had slept over their rights and that the cause of action arose in 1989, the Tribunal considered that the applicants had asserted a potentially arguable claim of parity with persons who had secured regularisation in earlier proceedings.

Whether the applicants were in fact similarly situated and entitled to regularisation was held to be a matter for determination on the merits, not at the preliminary stage of limitation.

In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal therefore preferred adjudication on merits over dismissal on limitation grounds.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs. As pleadings were complete, the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing on 27 August 2026.