1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1139/2007 Haribhau Punjaramji Tarudkar Vs. Regional Dairy Development Officer and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 03/07/2008. Heard Mr. Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Patel, learned A.G. P. for respondent no.1. None for respondent no. 2 and 4 though served. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.235/1992 filed by the present petitioner challenging the promotion granted to respondent nos.2 and 3. The Industrial Court held that the complaint filed by the petitioner in the year 1992 was barred by limitation and thereafter proceeded to give findings on merits. It is an admitted position that the promotions to respondent nos. 2 and 3 were granted by respondent no.1 on 30.7.1983 and 1.8.1983 and the complaint was filed in the year 1992. It is also an admitted position that the period of limitation for filing complaint is 2 90 days and, therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner was time barred. The Industrial Court, therefore, was perfectly justified in holding that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. I find no perversity in the said finding. Since the complaint itself was time barred, the question of going into merits does not arise. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Hence, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.