FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1046 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 1 Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for the petitioner. --- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. An application tendered by the employee to the labour court, seeking condonation of delay in preferring the complaint ULP Nos.2/2007 has been allowed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, in view of the order passed on 9/7/2009 and the said order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner by filing Revision before the learned Industrial Court, bearing Revision Application No. 93/2009. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court has rejected the revision in view of the orders dated 12/1/2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1046 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 2 2. The respondent/complainant has made a grievance in the complaint that his services have been brought to an end since 30th April, 2003 onwards. It is his further contention that he approached the representatives of the management on several occasions, but his request was not considered. The complainant presented the complaint on 19th May, 2007, alongwith an application making request to the court to condone the delay. The application was opposed by the petitioner/management by filing say. 3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, on consideration of the rival submissions found that the cause exhibited by the complainant being a continuing cause and as such, it cannot be strictly inferred that there is any delay in approaching the court. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasons recorded by the learned Judge of the Labour Court are not proper and in fact, there was no reason exhibited by the complainant seeking condonation of delay. He submits that, as per the contention of the complainant himself, there is a delay of about 1 year and 4 months in approaching the court. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1046 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 3 5. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that in fact, as per the contention raised in the complaint, the services of the complainant were dispensed with since 2003 onwards and the cause of action shown by him in the complaint of the year 2007 is incorrect. In fact, there is 4 years delay in approaching the court and no justifiable reasons are exhibited for consideration of the application presented to the Labour Court. 6. I have perused the application for condonation of delay as well as the impugned order. The reasons recorded by the Labour Court for allowing the application, on the face of it, appears to be not justifiable, but, that in itself, is not a sufficient ground for allowing the writ petition. Fact remains that, the complainant who was an employee of the petitioner institution has approached the Labour Court making a grievance in respect of his wrongful termination and the presentation of the complaint is also delayed. Even if assuming that there is a delay of about 4 years in approaching the Labour Court, looking to the grievance put forth by the complainant, the Labour court was justified in passing the final order, directing condonation of delay, although the reasons recorded in support of the order are not proper. The question/aspect of delay in approaching FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1046 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 4 the court can be taken into account by the Labour Court while dealing with the aspect of grant of back wages, if such occasion arises. At this stage, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition being devoid of any substance, the same is rejected. [R.M. BORDE,J.] grt/-