1 wp 4538.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4538 OF 2011 Govind Shamrao Dapkar .. Petitioner Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed and others .. Respondents Shri S. R. Kedar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatake, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Labour Court against the alleged oral termination in the year 1990. The same was dismissed in the year 2000. The petitioner thereafter filed revision in the year 2010. The petitioner also preferred an application for condonation of delay. The Industrial Court rejected the same on the ground that it is not within reasonable time. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Kedar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Court has wrongly applied Article 137 of the 2 wp 4538.11 Limitation Act. In fact no limitation is prescribed for filing revision U/Sec. 44 of the M. R. T. U and P. U. L. P. Act. According to the learned counsel when no limitation is prescribed, it was erroneous on the part of the Industrial to reject the same on the ground of delay. It is further contended that the petitioner has got strong arguable case and in such circumstances, the delay is required to be condoned. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Union of India Vs. Giani reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1388. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner to earn his bread had to shift at Pune and the advocate had assured him that the decision of the case would be informed. But the same was never informed. In all these circumstances the Industrial Court should have entertained the revision on merits. 3. Shri Phatake, the learned A. G. P. submits that the Industrial Court has not relied upon Article 137 of the Limitation Act while entertaining the revision, but the revision has been rejected on the ground of inordinate delay and no sufficient cause has been shown. 4. The proceedings would show that the petitioner had filed complaint in the year 1990. The same was decided in the year 3 wp 4538.11 2000 and for 10 years no steps were taken by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision in the year 2010. No doubt, the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the case. When no limitation is prescribed, then the said remedy has to be availed within a reasonable time. Lapses of 10 years by no stretch can be said to be a reasonable time. Moreover, the reason given is that the petitioner had shifted at Pune for employment. There is nothing on record also to show that the Labour Court had not considered the merits of the case. In the light of that the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Union of India Vs. Giani referred supra would not be applicable. 5. As the revision has not been filed within reasonable time, the Industrial Court has properly dealt with the matter. The discretion exercised by the Industrial Court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. 6. In the light of above the writ petition is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11