ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.04.2005, passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 29.10.2010, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAT' for short). 2. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the order passed by his employer, namely, respondent No.1, had raised a dispute before the Labour Court by invoking the provisions contained in Section 10 (4) (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act'). During the pendency of the said proceedings, the issue that was being agitated in common proceedings was with regard to the appropriate Court that is required to adjudicate the dispute when the employee concerned is an employee of a Co-operative Society/Bank and action is taken by such employer. 3. On the aspect relating to the various proceedings wherein a view was taken by this Court and it was ultimately held that in respect of employees' of Co-operative Society/Bank, the proceedings are to be considered under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act' for short), the same need not be adverted to in detail inasmuch as the same is not a disputed issue in this proceedings inasmuch as the petitioner having accepted the position had subsequently raised the dispute before respondent No.2 by filing his claim under Section 70 of the KCS Act. Since from the original date of the dismissal there was delay in raising the dispute, an application under Section 70-A of the KCS Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay. Respondent No.2 has passed the award against the petitioner by holding that the dispute as raised being after more than 4 years and there being delay, consideration cannot be made on merits. 4. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by such award dated 23.04.2005 passed by respondent No.2, had preferred an appeal under Section 105 of the KCS Act before the KAT. The KAT through its order dated 29.10.2010 has referred to all the above said aspects of the matter and has arrived at conclusion that in view of the petitioner herein having filed the dispute under Section 70 of KCS Act after the matter was disposed of by the Labour Court on 27.09.2003, the delay as held by respondent No.2 at 4 years cannot be accepted. Since to that extent the finding of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is in favour of the petitioner, the said aspect need not be adverted to once over again. The present position arises since the KAT despite arriving at such conclusion has ultimately dismissed the appeal by holding that even from the date of which the proceedings concluded before the Labour Court on 27.09.2003, there is a delay of three months 26 days which has not been properly explained by the petitioner though the application under Section 70-A(2) of the KCS Act had been filed. 5. Therefore, the only aspect to be considered herein is as to whether the KAT was justified in its conclusion to dismiss the appeal as belated? In a matter of present nature, what is to be at the outset kept in view is that in respect of the dismissal dated 12.10.1989, the petitioner had immediately raised the dispute and the same was pending before the Labour Court. It is due to the very position taken by this Court, the jurisdiction had remained unsettled and ultimately when the position was settled by this Court, the petitioner was driven to the appropriate forum. 6. In the circumstances, where the petitioner had gone through the litigation for such a long period and in that circumstances, consideration was available in alternative remedy, which was declared at that stage, the delay of 3 months 26 days cannot be considered as fatal to maintain the proceedings under Section 70 of the KCS Act. 7. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering such an aspect of the matter in its decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in ILR 1987 Kar 2844 has explained the manner in which the term "sufficient cause" is to be considered while condoning the delay since what ultimately is required is to deliver even handed justice to the parties. Therefore, in that circumstances, it is seen that the petitioner had primarily raised the dispute at the first instance before the Labour Court and as such he cannot be denied the benefit of consideration by the appropriate forum solely on the ground of delay and that too when he has acted promptly in the situation despite he having suffered the process for such a long time. 8. 8. Therefore, in that circumstances, the orders impugned dated 23.04.2005 and 29.10.2010 both of which have denied the relief to the petitioner on the ground of delay are set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to restore dispute No. DAP/D2/2252/2004-05 on record and consider the matter on its merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that respondent No.2 shall not advert to the question of delay once over again. To enable the matter to proceed further, the parties shall appear before respondent No.2 on 02.07.2018 at 3 p.m. If on the said date, respondent No.1 does not appear, appropriate notice shall be issued and the matter shall be concluded in an expeditious manner but not later than four months from the date of his appearance. All contentions on merits are left open to be urged before respondent No.2. Petition is accordingly disposed of.