1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4705/2010 SANJAY SHENDE ..VS... STATE OF MAH AND ANOR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri G.M.Bagde, advocate for petitioner Mrs. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 &2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Labour Court, Amravati on 9.10.2010, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. The petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant by the respondents on 1.8.1992 and his services were orally terminated by the respondents on 31.9.1993. The petitioner however, challenged the order of his oral termination dated 31.5.1993 by filing a complaint before the Labour Court, Amravati in the year 2008. An application was also filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court for condonation of delay in filing the complaint before the Labour Court. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that though the complaint was presented before the Labour Court on 27.3.2008, the petitioner was continuously prosecuting before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal 2 till 14.3.2008. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that his original application as well as the review application were dismissed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and he realized that he proceeded unnecessarily before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on different facts and grounds. It was stated in the application that the delay caused in filing the complaint was not deliberate and needs to be condoned. The respondents denied the prayer of the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. It was the case of the respondents that the delay was of 1½ decade and though the petitioner had filed the proceeding before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that litigation was totally on different grounds and issues and before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner had not challenged his oral termination dated 31.5.1993. The respondent stated that there was a gross delay in filing the complaint and the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the facts and the evidence on record held that there was absence of sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the complaint. It was held by the Labour Court that the petitioner was not diligent in challenging the termination dated 31.5.1993. According to the Labour Court the limitation for challenging the order of termination was only 90 days under the provisions of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 3 and in the instant case the petitioner had miserably failed to show that there was sufficient reason or cause for not approaching the court for 15 years. It appears that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the complaint, so also the Industrial Court was justified in rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Labour Court. It is to be noted that the complaint was filed after lapse of about 15 years and from the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the original application and in the review application, it appears that the petitioner had not challenged his termination dated 31.5.1993 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and had challenged the order dated 26.6.1996 appointing the respondent no.3 to 11 in the original application as Laboratory Attendant in Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya. The Labour Court rightly held that the litigation filed by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and before the Labour Court, was based on different cause of action and the issues were different and hence it could not be said that the petitioner was bonafide prosecuting the matter before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal before filing the complaint before the Labour Court. The judgment reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. Page 317 and relied on by the learned 4 counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Since the orders passed by the learned Labour Court and the Industrial Court are just and proper, they call for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP