1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. S.R.Bagal, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. L.H.Kawade holding for Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent no. 1. .......................... [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 04/09/2009. PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 21/6/2006 passed by the Judge, Labour Court in Misc. (ULP) No. 2 of 2005 and Order dated 10/8/2007 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalna in Application 9ULP) No. 53 of 2006 in Misc. (ULP) No. 2 of 2005. 2. The application which was filed by the present petitioner for 2 condonation of delay in filing restoration application of complaint filed before the Labour Court. 3. There was delay of about 6 years 11 months in filing said application. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the date of knowledge of exparte order to the petitioner is 7/9/2004 and, therefore, the delay of 6 years 11 months can not be counted and delay if any, is to be counted from the date of knowledge of the exparte order. It is further case of the petitioner that he came to know about the exparte order on 7/9/2004 is only for 57 days and, therefore, both the Courts below have not adopted liberal view and proper approach and have rejected the claim of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the Writ Petition and submitted that the reasons given by the Labour Court and Industrial Court in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, can not be faulted for and this Court may not entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and on careful perusal of the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the delay is not satisfactorily explained. It is also observed that the Doctor is not examined by the petitioner and in absence of it, it is difficult to rely on the medical certificate. In my view, on careful perusal of the Writ Petition, annexures thereto and the Judgment and Order passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court, no case for interference is made out under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the jurisdiction which is exercised by the Industrial Court itself is supervisory jurisdiction and scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited in view of the fact that both the Court below concurrently held that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Petition is devoid of any merits and hence the same is dismissed. [ S.S.SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP2230.09