1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1535 OF 2008. Gangadhar S/o Anandrao Shelke ... Petitioner. Versus The Principal, New Arts, Science and Commerce College, Ahmednagar and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.H.D.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 03.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of the College and University Tribunal, Pune, in Misc. Application No.17/2007, seeking condonation of delay. 2 2. The petitioner filed appeal before the College and University Tribunal, Pune, challenging his termination on 21.1.2003. He asserted that he had wrongly filed proceedings before the Industrial Court vide application dated 1.3.2005. He withdrew that application on 29.3.2006 and thereafter approached the College and University Tribunal. His contention before the College and University Tribunal was that he was unable to file the appeal because from 1.3.2006 to 5.6.2007 he was suffering from Chikanguniya. He further contended that there was delay of one year in filing of the appeal due to such kind of illness. 3. The learned Presiding Officer of the College and University Tribunal held that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and sufficient so as to condone the delay. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. Mr.Deshmukh, learned advocate seeks to 3 rely on certain observations in "Shivaji Shivlingappa Kadge and others Vs. Chief Officer, Municipal Council" 2005 (6) Bom.C.R.424, wherein it has been held that liberal approach is required to be taken in such matters. The learned Single Judge has referred to certain guidelines which are enumerated in the dictum in case of "Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others" AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353. 6. In the fact situation of the present case, the delay only of one year in filing of the appeal before the College and University Tribunal is not the matter of concern but there was already delay of about two (2) years in approaching the Industrial Court. That period of delay also was required to be satisfactorily explained. The petitioner alleged his termination by order dated 20.1.2003 and had approached the Industrial Tribunal on 1.3.2005. The delay of about two years was not condoned by the Industrial Court before his application was registered. Naturally, he was required to explain 4 the delay with effect from 2l.3.2003 onwards inasmuch as limitation for approaching the College and University Tribunal is of 60 days. The entire delay is not properly explained by him. The finding of the Tribunal can not be regarded as perverse. 7. In "D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another" (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 322, the Apex Court held that delay can not be condoned merely on sympathetic ground, when mandatory provision was not complied with and delay was not properly explained. The Apex Court observed that the negligence of a party can not be overlooked and unless there is satisfactory explanation, the delay could not have been condoned by the Sub-Judge of the High Court. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp153508