1 WP 1500.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1800 OF 2011 Mrs. Krishna S. Singh. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mrs. Krishna Satish Singh, Petitioner-in-Person. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard the Petitioner-in-person extensively. Her grievance is inspite of approaching the Advocate in January 2006 for initiating proceedings against the Petitioner's Ex- employer, the Advocate - Respondent No.2 even after receipt of the Advocate's fees or the charges, erroneously referred in the Vakalatnama the date of filing to be 10th March 2006 and also the affidavit is referred to be sworn on 10th March 2006. The Petitioner-in-person submits, it should have been sworn well in advance prior to expiry of 90 days period for redressal. The lapse on the part of the Advocate (Respondent No.2) as according to her resulted on merits of the matter and she lost the condonation petition before the learned Member, Industrial Court at Mumbai. 2. The Condonation of Delay Application (ULP) No.14 of 2006 was heard extensively by the learned Member of 2 WP 1500.11.sxw Industrial Court and by order dated 13th July 2006, he did not agree to condone the delay and the application was rejected. Review Application No.9 of 2006 seeking to recall the order referred above did not yield any result. The learned Judge could not review his order in terms of bar created under Section 30(2) of MRTU and PULP Act and also Rule 44 sub-Rule 6 of Industrial Court Regulations, 1975. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is, she had recorded conversation of her Advocate Smt. Vandita (Respondent No.2), in which her Advocate informed that certain things were managed in the Court and therefore, the order dated 13th July 2006 was slapped against her and hence, complaint is seeking reference against the said Advocate. This aspect did not generate any heat before the learned Judge. 4. It is a matter of record, and not disputed against the order dated 13th July 2006 in Application No.14 of 2006, the Petitioner has preferred a Writ Petition before this Court being No.2291 of 2010 which is pending. 5. Taking survey of all the events, the spark of the point that has been repeatedly urged by the Petitioner does not inspire any merit to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent. The Petitioner-in-person threatens this Court that she will approach the Supreme Court against order of rejection by this Court. She is at liberty to adopt remedies available in law. The Application lacs merit. Rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 WP 1500.11.sxw