:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2022 OF 2008 Shri Manohar Santu Sherkar ..Petitioner Vs. M/s. Gestetner (India) Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. S.N. Deshpande for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 28, 2008. Date : March 28, 2008. Date : March 28, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner’s demand for reinstatement was referred for adjudication in Reference (IDA) No. 50 of 1996 and the said reference came to be dismissed in default on 1/7/2000. More than four years later i.e. on 4/9/2004 he submitted an application for restoration under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and the said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 27/9/2007 passed by the 3rd Labour Court at :2: Pune. 2. Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 reads as under:- 26. Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex-parte.- (1) ..... (2) Where any award, order or decision is made exparte under subrule (1), the aggrieved party, may, within thirty days of the receipt of a copy thereof, make an application to the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator, as the case may be, to set aside such award, order or decision. If the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non appearance of the aggrieved party, it or he may set aside the award, order or decision so made and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the matter: . Provided that, no award, order or :3: decision shall be set aside on any application as aforesaid unless notice thereof has been served on the opposite party. . It is clear that an application for restoration may be made within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of any ex parte award. 3. Mr.Deshpande submitted that the petitioner-workman had not received the subject award till he approached the Labour Court and he got the knowledge of the same award in a pending gratuity case and soon thereafter he filed the application for restoration. This explanation cannot find favour for the simple reason that the petitioner was represented by a lawyer before the Labour Court. 4. Even otherwise the delay caused is of more than four years and not of few months and more importantly there is no provision under the Rules giving discretion to the Labour Court to condone the delay beyond 30 days. There is one more facet which requires to be considered in the instant case and as :4: per the workman’s own case he had tendered resignation from service on 31/1/1996 after putting in more than 24 years of service and after the resignation was accepted, the employer did not pay the legal dues and that was perhaps the cause for the demand for reinstatement. 5. Hence, I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the 3rd Labour Court at Pune cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)