1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.374 of 2008 The State of Maharashtra & ors. Petitioners Vs. Shri Bapu Laxman Kharat Respondent Mr.S.K.Chinchalikar, AGP for petitioners. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. January 22, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Chinchalikar, the learned AGP. The five labourers working under the Deputy Engineer, Pune Irrigation Division Baramati had approached the Labour Court at Pune and filed Complaints (ULP) Nos.124 to 128 of 1996 alleging that each one of them had put in about five to eight years of service and they were illegally removed from service on 29/6/1996 or on 1/3/1996. The Labour Court allowed the complaints by its judgment and order dated 6/10/2001 and held that the termination of the complainants’ service was by way of unfair labour practice and consequently they were directed to be reinstated with full backwages. 2 . The present petitioners, therefore, filed Revision Applications (ULP) Nos.127 to 131 of 2001 and by a common judgment these revisions came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court at Pune on 3/5/2002. This petition has been filed on 14/12/2007 i.e. after more than 5 and 1/2 years. . In the mean while the complainants were reinstated and they had approached the Labour Court by separate applications filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said applications were allowed by the Labour Court on 8/9/2006. The petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.8856, 8859, 8871, 8872 and 8873 of 2007 and all these petitions came to be rejected summarily on 5/12/2007. . Not only the petition has been thus filed inordinately belatedly but indeed the impugned orders have received their finality and the recovery applications have also been allowed by the Labour Court. . On the issue of termination from service, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the 3 complainants were illegally terminated and the present respondent is one of those five complainants. It is also noted from the record that these five employees had approached the Industrial Court by filing Complainant (ULP) Nos.464/1993, 465/1993, 560/1993, 561/1993 and 145/1994. By a common judgment and order dated 26/9/1997 the complaints were partly allowed and the present petitioners were directed to take the complainants on CRT and pay them wages like the workers already on CRT. It is thus clear that challenge to the impugned order passed by the Labour Court regarding reinstatement in service with full backwages and which came to be confirmed by the Industrial Court has become stale. Hence the petition is rejected. (B.H.MARL