(1) WP 11173.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11173 OF 2010 Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Warshi PETITIONER VERSUS Manik Chindhul Jadhav RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Deepak Rajput, Advocate h/f. Mr. B.R. Warma, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amol Sawant, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer has challenged the orders of Labour Court dated 2.5.2009 passed Misc. U.L.P. 13 of 2008 condoning delay in filing U.L.P. complaint. The petitioner had earlier questioned these orders in Revision Application U.L.P. 13 of 2009 under section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice, 1971 before the Industrial Court and Industrial Court vide judgment dated 10.8.2008 has rejected that challenge. (2) WP 11173.2010 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that as per provisions of section 61 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1971, the Gram Panchayat has no powers in the matter of employment and it is Sarpanch who is only competent. It is further contended that no resolution as alleged has been passed by Gram Panchayat on 2.10.2008 and in any case remedy of filing appeal before Block Development Officer ought to have been availed. 3. Shri Sawant for respondent points out that limitation prescribed under section 28 of the above mentioned 1971 Act is of 90 days. The respondent claims to have been terminated on 23.1.2008 and within limitation i.e. 18.3.2008 he made a representation to Gram Panchayat. That representation was turned down on 2.10.2008 and thereafter on 24.10.2008 the complaint has been filed alongwith prayer for condonation of delay. He therefore states that Labour Court as also Industrial Court have rightly made allowance for period from 18.3.2008 to 2.10.2008. (3) WP 11173.2010 4. After hearing respective counsel, I find that the petitioner did not lead any evidence before Labour Court to show that there was no resolution of Gram Panchayat on 2.10.2008. The Labour Court has accepted the un-controverted pleadings of respondent and accordingly made allowance for period from 18.3.2008 to 2.10.2008. The delay has been condoned. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. The said order has been rightly maintained by the Industrial Court. 5. The challenge to alleged absence of jurisdiction with Labour Court is pertaining to merits of the controversy and the petitioner can have no grievance as complaint is now being entertained by the Labour Court. The said challenge is not lost by them. No case is made out. Petition rejected. No costs. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp