1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3456 OF 2009 Vasant s/o Haribhau Salve age 42 years, occ. nil r/o Pathri, Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Municipal Council Through its Chief Officer Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani .. RESPONDENT Ms. R.P. Gour, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Megha Vaishnav, Advocate holding for Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th November, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Petitioner herein is challenging order passed in Misc. ULP no. 13/2008 2 on 12-3-2009 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Nanded thereby rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner / complainant seeking condonation of delay of 932 days occurred in presenting the complaint. 4 It is the case of the complainant that by virtue of order passed on 31-1-2006 services of the petitioner / complainant came to be dispensed with. The reason quoted in the order of termination is in respect of pendency of Writ Petition no. 7094/2005 in the High Court. It is the contention of the petitioner that said writ petition came to be disposed of by this court on 20-9-2007. This court while disposing of writ petition directed the Collector to consider the representation, copy of which was placed on record. After disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner approached the Laobur Court raising challenge to the order of termination passed on 31-1-2006. The learned Judge of the labour court after hearing both the parties rejected the application on account of failure of the petitioner to place on record copy of Writ Petition no. 7094//2005 filed by one Mukaddar Momin. 5 I have perused the order passed by the learned Judge of the labour court and, in my opinion, the order needs to be set aside and the 3 petitioner / employee needs to be extended an opportunity to present his grievance before the labour court. It is brought to my notice that complaint ULP no. 169/2008 was presented by seven employees who were covered by the common order of termination issued by Municipal Council on 31-1-2006. Labour court while dealing with said complaint directed reinstatement of the employees concerned. Petitioner is also one amongst the 21 employees whose services were terminated by virtue of common order passed on 31-1-2006. Petitioner herein is also needed to be extended similar treatment as meted out to the employees who are similarly situate. In these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner needs to be gone into and the petitioner needs to be extended further opportunity to put forth his case before the labour court. Considering the nature of the order i.e. termination of employee of the Municipal Council and considering the fact that the employees covered by common order are already directed to be reinstated while rendering decision in complaint ULP no. 169/2008, I am of the considered view that order passed by the labour court, Nanded dismissing the application tendered by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay needs to be quashed and set aside. Thus, order passed by the learned Judge, labour court, Nanded on 12-3-2009 is quashed and set aside. Application tendered by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in 4 presenting complaint shall be deemed to have been allowed and the learned Judge, labour court, Nanded is directed to deal with the complaint presented by the complainant on its own merit and in accordance with law. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp3456.09.odt