1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4673/2009 (Zilla Parishad Amravati and others vs. Babarao B. Baraskar) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4685/2009 (Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Amravati and others vs. Babarao B. Baraskar and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2009. Heard Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 4685/2009, challenge is to the judgment dated 13/12/2007 delivered by Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 5/2003. There the benefit of Clause 28 of the Kalelkar Award has been extended to respondent and direction has been given to bring him on CRT from March, 1994. Observations made in Pargaraph 11 show that witness for the petitioner has stated that proposal for such placement of respondent was already forwarded by the Zilla Parishad to the State Government. Advocate Kasat has argued that completion of 5 years and entitlement to CRT is because of the interim order passed by the Labour Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No. 296/90. He states that because of this interim order, the 2 employee continued to work from 1990 onwards. He also points out that challenging the said judgment, Writ Petition No. 4673/2009 is filed by the Zilla Parishad. In both these petitions, the orders challenged are old and there is no acceptable explanation about delay and latches. Advocate Kasat has tried to contend that because of nature of Zilla Parishad as political body, the delay has occurred. However, that cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that judgment dated 11.4.2002 could have been challenged within reasonable time in revision under Section 44 before the Industrial Court. No such revision was filed and it appears that the said judgment was accepted. The facts any how show that respondent employee continued to work without any disturbance from March, 1989 and thus, in terms of Clause 28 of Kalelkar Settlement, he has been rightly directed to be brought on CRT from March, 1994. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.