1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3937/2009. Anil C. Khare -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 4558/2009. Anil C. Khare -: versus :- Maharashtra State co-op. Bank Ltd and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned A.G.P. for State Government and Shri S.S. Ghate, learned Counsel for Respondent Employees Union. Challenge in Writ Petition No. 4558/2009 is to order dated 04.03.2006 delivered by the Industrial Court at Nagpur in ULPA Complaint No. 264/2000. In that complaint, the petitioner’s challenge was to denial of promotion to him at Nagpur contending that he was deliberately offered promotion out of Nagpur. Grievance made was several juniors were accommodated at Nagpur. The facts show that petitioner joined services as clerk in 1966 and retired on superannuation in 1999. Thereafter he filed present complaint. During his service he was offered promotions on 4 occasions and he refused those promotions as according to him because of ill health of his mother he was not in a position to go out of Nagpur. 2 It is apparent that the promotions were not challenged when offered and in complaint filed after superannuation, prayer was to grant benefit of promotional retrospectively i.e. from the year 1987. The ULPA Complaint does not contain any reason as to why the complaint could not be filed within limitation. As the petitioner was offered promotion on 4 occasions and he declined, it is apparent that no exception can be taken to the impugned order of Industrial Court. In Writ Petition No. 3937/2009, challenge is to order dated 16.11.2007 delivered by the Industrial Court. That complaint was filed by the petitioner in 2000 and he sought cancellation of registration as also recognition of respondent no.6 Union because of its failure to espouse his case. The cause was of not giving any promotion in Nagpur. The Industrial Court has dismissed that complaint. For reasons already recorded above, it is apparent that there is no case made out warranting any interference in the matter. Both the Writ Petitions are also filed belatedly and Shri Kilor, learned counsel appearing for petitioner had then pointed out that he was entrusted that responsibility by the Legal Services Sub-Committee, therefore, notices were issued and in response to the notice, I have heard the respective counsel. As I do not any any merits in the Writ Petitions, the same are dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.