1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5999 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.B.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 3. The petitioner impugns the order of transfer dated 25.12.2003, by filing Misc.Application (ULP) No.6/2007 on 3.4.2007 along with an application for condonation of delay. The Industrial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court has not considered the grounds stated for condonation of delay instead the Court has considered the merits of the matter. At the time of considering the application for condonation of delay, the merits of the matter are not required to be considered. The learned 2 counsel further contends that vide transfer order, the petitioner was transferred from Ahmednagar to Gauhati. Thereafter, the petitioner had made representation which also was not considered. The petitioner all the time making representations but the same was not being considered and eventually had filed the petition before the Industrial Court and as such the delay has been caused. The petitioner was job-less. All these aspects should have been considered by the Industrial Court. 5. Mr.Ashok Patil, learned counsel for the Respondents supports the order and submits that it is not a case that the petitioner was not aware of the order but on the contrary, the petitioner himself had submitted an application stating that he may be paid compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). This shows that even the petitioner was not interested in service. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. The petitioner had challenged the order of transfer effected in the year 2003 in April 2007. Now it is almost eight years, the said order of transfer is effected. It is not a case that the petitioner had challenged any termination order. It would not be of any use to consider the challenge to the transfer at such an abnormal delay. Even otherwise, the petitioner was aware of the order as can be seen from the correspondence made from time to time. 3 7. In such circumstances, no error can be found in the order passed by the Industrial Court. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.16.11.2011. asp/office/wp5999.11 4