Condonation of delay must be explained after the 60-day period expires; premature rejection of the reference was unsustainable.

Delay in filing a condonation application was required to be explained only after expiry of the prescribed 60-day period, not within that initial period. The Tribunal erred in rejecting the reference on the basis that the delay had not been explained during the first 60 days. The High Court set aside that order and directed that the condonation application and the reference be heard on merits and decided afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the condonation application had to be explained during the initial 60-day period or only after expiry of the 60 days, and whether the Tribunal's rejection of the reference on that ground was sustainable.

Analysis: The order records that the petitioner was required to explain the delay only after the expiry of the 60 days prescribed by law, and not within that initial period. Since the Tribunal had dismissed the condonation application and the reference on the footing that the delay had not been explained during the first 60 days, that approach was held to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the condonation application together with the reference was directed to be heard on merits and decided afresh.

---