1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAZ) NO.744 OF 2009 IN L.P.A. STAMP NO.16399 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4115 OF 1998 (SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER GOSIKHURD PROJECT CIRCLE & ANOTHER ..VS.. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, NAGPUR. & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : A.H. JOSHI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 03, 2009. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 78 days. 2. This court thought it proper to scrutinize the merits of appeal in order that the respondent is not vexed by appearing in this court, unless the appeal has merit. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant was therefore, called upon to address the court on merits. 4. Heard. 5. It is seen that the learned Judge, Industrial Court recorded a finding based on testimony of present applicant’s witness. Relevant portion is seen in paragraph 9 which is produced as under: “This witness further admitted that from 01.05.1984 complainant was paid wages of Semi-skilled Labour, Abhiman and Nagulwar 2 were also paid wages of Semi-skilled Labour before they were brought on CRTE. He admits that complainant was brought on CRTE when Nagulwar and Abhiman were brought on CRTE. This witness has also admitted that complainant was paid wages as Semi-skilled Labour before 01.05.1984. The duplicates copy of service book of the complainant is produced at Exh.24. It shows that complainant was brought on CRTE as Mukkadam and it is scored out and the entry is shown as Attendant with effect from 01.05.1984. The wages paid to the complainant on 01.05.1984 are shown Rs.15.50/- and for the subsequent period at some rate. Witness No.2 for respondents admits that complainant was paid wages of Semi-skilled Labour from 01.05.1984 onwards. The evidence of respondents witness No.1 is clear that Semi-skilled Labours are brought on CRTE as Mukkadam.” 6. From the above findings based on the employer’s evidence, the appellant in fact had no ground to challenge the order of Industrial Court before the learned Single Judge. In the result, the learned Single Judge concurred with the findings of Industrial Court and rejected the writ petition. 7. This court finds that the appeal is filed, however, without any ground to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge being available. 8. In this background it would certainly amount to vex the respondent if notice on application for condonation of delay is issued. 9. In the premises discussed above, the appeal and application for condonation of delay being merit less are rejected. JUDGE JUDGE SMP