 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3823/2008 The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Gondia ..vs.. Smt. Bhimabai wd/o Mayaram Kotangale and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M. V. Bute, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 21 st MARCH, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. One Mayaram Kotangale, husband of respondent nos. 1 and 2, was working as Muster Clerk under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. He worked with the petitioner from November-1979 to June-1992 when his services were terminated. He challenged termination of services by Complaint ULP No. 201/1993. That complaint was not contested and it was allowed by judgment dated 29.01.1996. By said order, termination was set aside and the complainant was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Revision ULP No. 3/1998. Meanwhile, order passed by Labour Court was also implemented in respect of reinstatement. The revision application was dismissed. However, the petitioner was permitted to approach the  Labour Court for setting aside ex parte order. The Industrial Court passed the order on 13.08.2004. In view of that, the petitioner filed Misc. ULP No. 9/2006 before the Labour Court for setting aside ex parte decree on 10.04.2006 with an application for condonation of delay. It appears that after the Industrial Court had given liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Labour Court for setting aside ex parte order, the petitioner took almost twenty two months to file that application. The Labour Court rejected that application observing that the original employee had died on 01.08.2003 after having served for seven years after reinstatement and, therefore, there was no justification to condone the delay and to set aside ex parte order. That order was challenged in Revision ULP No. 45/2001. The revision application was also rejected. Hence, this petition. 3. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not see any justification to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE kahale