1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.189/2008 In Writ Petition No.2894/2005 (Decided) [Nutan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal through Secretary and others .vrs. Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Nagpur and Amravati Universities and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Mohan Sudame, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. A.P. Raghute, Advocate for respondent no.2, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, AGP for respondent no.3. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent No.2 was serving as Head Clerk with the appellant. On 28.5.1993 show cause notice was issued to respondent no.2 about misappropriation of scholarship amount of Rs.81,500/-. On 30.6.1993 respondent no.2 was placed under suspension and chargesheet was served on him. Thereafter, Departmental Enquiry was conducted. After conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry, respondent no.2 was dismissed from 2 service on 25.10.1993. 3. On 4.11.1993 Respondent No.2 challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court. The Management immediately raised preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and submitted that it was the College Tribunal which has got jurisdiction. However, the Labour Court, by order dated 22.3.1994 held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of Respondent No.2. The Management challenged the said order before the Industrial Court. By order dated 30.11.1995 the Industrial Court held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint. Respondent No.2 challenged the order of the Industrial Court by filing Writ Petition No.103/1996. However, on 6.7.2004 Respondent No.2 withdrew the petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum. It was only on 2.9.2004 that Respondent No.2 challenged his dismissal before the College Tribunal. Thus, there was inordinate delay in challenging the order of dismissal dated 25.10.1993. The College Tribunal condoned the delay. It was upheld by the learned Single Judge and that is why present the Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the Management. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants, in order to challenge the impugned order, relied on Chandrakant Shripad 3 Bhave .vrs. The Secretary Shri A. P. D. J. Path Shala Balives Solapur and others, All India Education Cases, Page 574, and particularly on the observation of the Division Bench in para no.4 of the judgment. 5. In the present case, the College Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has considered that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Considering the circumstances of the case, we do not think that any interference in Letters Patent Appeal is necessary. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande