( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7340 OF 2008 Shri Ananda Katthu Zalte PETITIONER VERSUS The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Dhule. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.P. Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr. N.L. Chaudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Afzal Hussain, advocate holding for Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 20th January, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner retired as Traffic Controller on 31st March, 1997. There was an agreement between the Workers’ Union and the respondent – M.S.R.T.C. It was mutually agreed that the workers will be paid certain amounts and will be given leave encashment for period between 01-04-1996 till 31-03-2000. When the alleged amount was due, the petitioner had retired. He filed ( 2 ) complaint (ULP) alongwith Misc. Application (ULP) No. 12/2008 seeking condonation of delay of seven years and 9 months. He alleged that the respondent illegally denied him benefits of the agreement and, therefore, he sought the relief. The delay condonation application came to be dismissed. 3. The complaint application should have been filed within period of 90 days from the date of the accrual of cause of action. According to the petitioner, he denied leave encashment of 215 days and there was no proper fixation of the pay. The petitioner submitted that he was waiting for decison of a suit which was filed by the respondent vide R.C.S. No. 233/1999 in the civil Suit. 4. The Industrial Court noticed that the suit was dismissed on 04-08-2007 whereas the complaint application was filed on 15-09-2008. The delay of more than one year was explained by the petitioner. In fact, there was no reason for him to await decision of the civil Suit which had no nexus with his right to recover the amount of leave encashment, etc. Needless to say, the explanation given by the petitioner is lame and ( 3 ) unacceptable. The Industrial Court duly considered the legal position with reference to the authorities which are discussed while passing the impugned order. The discretion used by the Industrial Court is legal and proper. No interference is called for. The petiiton is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp7340-08