WP/6941/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6941 OF 2010 Bank Employees Union, Kolhapur ... Petitioner V/s. The Chairman The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.R. Ganbavale for Petitioner Mr.J.P. Cama with Mahesh Londhe i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 6, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Petition is preferred against the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the application for restoration of the complaint. The Industrial Court has not condoned the delay in filing an application for setting aside an ex parte order. The Industrial Court has held that it had no power to condone the delay when such an application was filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 31(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court has relied on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dilip Vithalrao Jogdand vs. Vaidyanath Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., 2007 II CLR 78 and of the Division Bench at Aurangabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.3 of 2004 in Writ Petition No.631 of 2003. The Division Bench has observed thus: “We have considered the scheme of section 1 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and sub-section (2) therein enables an aggrieved party to file an application for restoration within a period of 30 days. There is no power with WP/6941/2010 : 2 : the Court concerned to condone the delay on the lines of such a power as has been provided under Section 30 of the Act.” 2. I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench and therefore in my opinion, the contentions of the learned advocate for the Petitioners cannot be sustained. He has argued that since the petitioners obtained a copy of the order only on 20.3.2009 it is that date which must be considered while calculating the period of limitation. According to him, section 31(2) makes it incumbent on a party to apply to the Court for setting aside an ex-parte order as mentioned in sub-section (1) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. He submits that since the copy was received only on 23.3.2009, the petitioners cannot be faulted for having approached the Court late. 3. It appears that the impugned order was passed on 30.6.2008. In their application for restoration the petitioners have stated that they became aware of the order having been passed only on 20.3.2009 and immediately applied for a certified copy of the order. Therefore, they could not approach the Court earlier. This submission has rightly not been accepted by the Industrial Court as no reasons had been mentioned by the petitioners as to why they were not vigilant and unable to get any information from their advocate about the matter, earlier. 4. The Writ Petition is therefore rejected.