4. No doubt, the Tribunal has got discretion to condone the delay, but that discretion has to be exercised judiciously and reasonably. The word “Sufficient Cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has not been defined under the Act. But, it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the said provision. When there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the party approaching the Tribunal, then, the delay can be condoned. The overall circumstances have to be taken into consideration for condonation of the delay. The reason given by the petitioners was that the order copy was received on 22.12.1999. Thereafter, in January, 2000, the matter was referred to the Telecom Central Headquarters, New Delhi, which in turn, referred the matter to the Ministry of Finance with a proposal for implementation, but the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance advised on 21.6.2000 that the case of the applicant in O.A.No.730 of 1998, being a Grade.II Hindi Translator, and the case of applicants in O.A.No.827 of 1991 before the Principal Bench, New Delhi, being the Senior Hindi Translators, are not similar and therefore, they advised to file a review petition. As seen from the affidavit, the delay in filing the review application was purely on account of administrative exigencies, which is beyond the control of the petitioners. Therefore, as the delay has been satisfactorily explained, it can be condoned. Hence, M.A.No.854 of 2000 is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned. The Tribunal is directed to number the review application i.e., R.A.(SR)No.3849 of 2000 in O.A.No.730 of 1998 and dispose of the same in accordance
