1 wp-2158-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 2158 OF 2010. Arun Betkekar. ..Petitioner. v/s. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Ms. Rita K. Joshi, for Petitioner. Mr. K.M. Naik, a/w. Mr. S.P. Salkar, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 26TH OCTOBER 2010. P.C. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Third Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 8th September 2009, dismissing the Application seeking amendment to Complaint (ULP) No. 181 of 2007. The Petitioner has also impugned the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 24th June 2010, dismissing the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 181 of 2007 before the Labour Court on 13th June 2007 on the basis of apprehension of termination of his services and moved for interim reliefs. On 14th June 2007, the Respondent No.1 appeared in the matter and filed an Affidavit in reply pointing out that the services of the Petitioner have already been terminated. On 13th July 2007, 2 wp-2158-10 after hearing both the parties, the Labour Court rejected the Application for interim relief. On 16th June 2008, the Petitioner filed an application seeking leave to amend the complaint to enable him to challenge the order of dismissal. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner was in June 2007 aware that he was dismissed and his complaint apprehending dismissal had become infructuous. However, the Petitioner moved the amendment application to enable him to challenge the order of dismissal after a period of eleven months without assigning any reason for the delay. The Revision Application was also dismissed on the same grounds. The Petitioner has therefore, impugned the said orders in the present Writ Petition. 3. After the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is heard for some time, the learned Advocate has agreed to pursue the other remedies available to the Petitioner to impugn the said order of dismissal. 4. In view thereof, the above Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue any of the remedies available in law for impugning the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent No.1, which shall be decided on its own merits. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]