1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1656/2011 (Vijay K. Dhanorkar VERSUS M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K.S. Jagdale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.G. Wankhede, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 7 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 26.02.2009 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of about eight years in filing the application for restoration of Complaint U.L.P. No.964/1995, which was dismissed on 10.07.2000. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay dated 14.10.2008 along with the impugned order dated 26.02.2009, it appears that the Industrial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The Industrial Court rightly considered the fact that the complaint was filed by the petitioner in the year 1995 and thought the complaint was dismissed in July-2000, the petitioner, for the first time, made an effort to get the complaint restored, by the application dated 14.10.2008. It is merely stated in the application that the advocate of the petitioner was aged about 85 years or 2 more and he had left the practice. It is stated in the application that the counsel for the petitioner had not informed the petitioner about the dismissal of the matter. These two reasons were not sufficient for condoning the huge delay of nearly eight years. It was not stated in the application as to what efforts, the petitioner took from the year 2000 till the year 2008, when the application for restoration was filed. The Industrial Court rightly held that the total inaction on the part of the petitioner from the year 2000 till the year 2008 clearly showed his negligence and it was not a fit case for condonation of delay. The Industrial Court rightly observed that there was absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner had made an enquiry with the advocate or the Industrial Court about the stage of the complaint at any point of time between the years 2000 to 2008. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Industrial Court and, hence, the same cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE