IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1647 of 2009 Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, Garhwal Region, Kotdwar. … Petitioner. Versus Hukum Singh Farswan S/O Sri Uday Singh Farswan R/O Village Nijmoola, Post Office Gadi, District Chamoli, Uttarakhand. … Respondent. Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date April 17, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-7-2009 (Annexure No.7 to the petition) passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner in C.P.C.D. Case No. 3 of 2009, whereby the Conciliation Officer while allowing the application of the workman-respondent has condoned the delay in referring the matter for conciliation of dispute and fixed the date for filing of written statement. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 13-7- 2009, it comes out that the petitioner has filed writ petition against the order whereby the delay condonation application filed by the respondent-workman was allowed and the delay was condoned. It appears from a perusal of the record that the respondent having been aggrieved by the order of retrenchment dated 24-03-1995 passed by the employer raised an industrial dispute belatedly after about 13 years, 8 months and along with the application under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an application for condonation of delay was moved before the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner. The application of the respondent for condonation of delay was allowed observing that none was present from the side of the employer and 2 no objection against the delay condonation application was filed. Accordingly, delay was condoned and the dispute was registered fixing 22-7-2009 for filing of written statement. In my opinion, present writ petition against an order condoning delay is not maintainable. Moreover, the main dispute between the parties had not yet been adjudicated on merits. During the course the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this Court has already dismissed a number of writ petitions vide order dated 19-3-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 889 of 2008 (M/S), Divisional Marketing Manager Vs. State and others and the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 19-3-2010. Learned counsel further urged that the present writ petition may also be dismissed in terms of the order dated 19-3-2010. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the order dated 19-3-2010. I have perused the order dated 19-3-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 889 of 2008 (M/S), Divisional Marketing Manager Vs. State and others along with 44 other writ petitions. The matter involved in those petitions is identical to that of the present petition. This Court has dealt with the entire controversy elaborately and has ultimately dismissed all the writ petitions on merits with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each petition. Consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on merits with cost of Rs. 2,000/- in terms of order dated 19-3-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 889 of 2008 (M/S), Divisional Marketing Manager Vs. State and others along with 44 other writ petitions. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3