1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 189/2011 IN WRIT PETITION No. 4705/2010. Sanjay Panjabrao Shende -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 13.06.2011. Heard Shri G.M. Bagade, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri J.B. Jaiswal, the learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Order refusing to condone delay by the Labour Court and maintained by the learned Single Judge of this Court is, questioned in this Appeal. Contention is, appellant has extremely good case on merits and he has been all through fighting because of the injustice meted out to him. 2 Learned A.G.P. points out that against alleged termination in the year 1993 no steps were taken at any point of time, till the Labour Court was approached in the year 2008. He contends that though some proceedings were filed in the meanwhile, those proceedings were for entirely different purpose. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the papers. We find that Writ Petition was filed in the year 1997 and that Writ Petition was withdrawn because of liberty given by this Court to approach appropriate forum in the matter. The appropriate forum, i.e. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was approached in the year 1998 and proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal remained pending till the year 2008. After 2008 adjudication against him, petitioner approached the Labour Court. It is to be noted that neither in 1997 Writ Petition before this Court nor in 1998 Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenge was to termination in the year 1993. 3 There is no justification for not challenging the termination from 1993 to 1997 and thereafter from 1997 till 2008. Even if, pending proceedings are presumed to be sufficient justification, delay from 1993 till 1997 has not been explained at all. We, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error in the approach of the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is, thus, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd