1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2672 OF 2006 Nirmal Laxmikant Mhatre .. Appellant Vs. ACC LTD. .. Respondent Mr. E.P. Bharucha, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P.M. Patel for appellant. Mr. Sorab Parekh a/w Renuka Lele & Dipika Borade i/by Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 05, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Bharucha, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Patel for the appellant-complainant and this appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 3/4/2007, thereby dismissing Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2006 on account of laches. 2. The appellant had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 159 of 1992 before the 2 Industrial Court at Mumbai and sought the relief of promotion with effect from November, 1990. By a subsequent amendment, the relief of promotion was limited and it was prayed for to grant promotion to Grade VII from 1/11/1991 with consequential benefits and in the alternative to grant the very same promotion with effect from 1/7/2000 in accordance with the agreement with the Union. By his judgment and order dated 13/2/2004, the learned Member of the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and in addition to the declaration of unfair labour practice against the employer, the complainant was given the benefit of promotion from Grade IX to Grade VIII from 1/11/1991 and from Grade VIII to Grade VII from 1/7/2000 and to pay him all consequential arrears of wages and other benefits. 3. Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2006 was filed by the appellant on 12/10/2006 i.e. after about 2 years and 8 months. The learned Single Judge considered the explanation given in paragraph 16 of the petition memo and held that the same was not acceptable and, in fact, there was no explanation for the laches on the part of the petitioner. 4. In this appeal the appellant has set out the details of the court cases 3 he was required to attend in different courts at Mumbai and prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 3/4/2007. It is further submitted that the petition filed by the employer against the order passed by the Industrial Court is already admitted and it would be appropriate that Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2006 filed by the petitioner is admitted and heard along with the petition filed by the employer. 5. We are not impressed by all these submissions. The petitioner has been before the courts including this Court and if he was attending to the Union court cases, he cannot turn up and say that he was busy and had no time to approach this court for his own case and that too for a period of 2 years and 8 months. The explanation furnished in paragraph 16 of the petition memo was considered by the learned Single Judge and it was found to be unsatisfactory. The view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be termed as erroneous so as to call interference in an intra court appeal. 6. Even otherwise, we have noted that the alternative prayer made by the petitioner by amendment has been granted by the Industrial Court and in addition, the petitioner has been granted promotion from Grade IX to 4 Grade VIII from 1/11/1991. Thus the complaint has been allowed by granting substantial relief, as prayed for. 7. For all these reasons, we do not find any substance in the challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal must fail at the threshold. 8. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)