1 wp-3624-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 3624 OF 2009 M/s.ISI Bars Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Shri.Virendrakumar Gaud ..Respondent .... Mr.V.P.Vaidya Adv. for Petitioner Mr.S.N.Deshpande Adv.for Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : 27th JULY , 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Respondent was in employment of the petitioner as a machine operator. In 1999, he came to be terminated. He challenged the said termination. Thereafter, he came to be reinstated on 2nd July, 2009. Respondent-complainant filed the complaint inter alia under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Act and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (for short 2 wp-3624-09 “M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act ”) on the grounds that he is not made a permanent employee, he was provided with work not as Grinder but he was provided work with picking department which is hazardous. 3. This complaint came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 16th April, 2007. It was declared that the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice prescribed under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV. They were directed to extend the benefits of permanency to the respondent in the post of Grinder from the date of the complainant ’s rendering 240 days service in a calender year to be reckoned from 17th January, 1994 and they were also directed to extend the benefits of settlement with retrospective effect. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the facts of this case, the respondent would not be covered by the settlement as he did not fulfill the requirement in the said Section. However, it is seen that judgment and order of the Industrial Court is dated 16th April, 2007. The petitioner has filed the present petition on 25th March, 2009 i.e. almost after a period of two years. The only explanation for the delay tendered by the petitioner is to be found in paragraph 13 of the petition. It is stated in the said paragraph that the petitioner had entrusted the matter to the advocate who failed to attend the same and the matter proceeded exparte. It is further stated that “The Petitioners came to 3 wp-3624-09 know that exparte orders were passed only after nearly _____ months when complaint for non-implementation was filed in the Labour Court. Thereafter the company consulted their advocate who opined that unless all the papers were available no decision could be taken. ” It is pertinent to note that the date or even the approximate period in months when the petitioner came to know about the exparte order, has not been mentioned. The relevant portion is kept blank. 5. Thereafter, it is stated that the Officer incharge of the matter, had resigned and again track of the matter was lost. Thereafter, as it was found that the order was totally unjustified, it was decided to challenge the same. The explanation furnished by the petitioner, in my opinion, is not sufficient explanation in respect of the delay of almost two years. Even till today relevant portion in paragraph no.13 is left blank. Though this writ petition was filed in March, 2009, till today no leave to amend has been sought to fill the period. It is seen that even today the petitioner is not diligent in following up the matter and challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. In my view, only on ground of delay and laches, this petition is liable to 4 wp-3624-09 be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]