1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2009. IN L.P.A. ST. NO.12992/09. IN W.P.NO.2053 OF 1997 (D) CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, AMRAVATI AND ANOTHER VS BISU S/O BABU BETHE AND ANOTHER ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. T. D. Khade, AGP for the appellant. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 21st November, 2009. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Letters Patent Appeal has been delayed by 116 days. 3. While condoning the delay, it is necessary to look into the merits of the appeal, else, this Court would be unnecessarily calling the respondents to attend this Court which exercise may be required if the appeal has some merit. 4. This Court had, therefore, called upon the learned AGP to argue the appeal on merits. 5. Heard appeal on merits. Perused the 2 annexures. 6. It is seen that by the judgment of the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No.93 of 1992 said Court had granted a declaration of unfair labour practice in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. Said judgment of Industrial Court was challenged before the learned Single Judge and writ petition has been dismissed, which order is challenged in present appeal. 7. The foundation of the complaint was that though the complainant has completed 240 days of service and used to drive the vehicles as only work assigned, other who were junior to him in same category were given promotion as Drivers category. 8. The issue before Industrial Court was whether due to the acts complained of, the respondents therein/present appellants had engaged in Unfair Labour Practice. It had no nexus with claiming permanent status if any under substantive rules. 9. Protection sought by the complainant was based on MRTU & PULP Act, and it has been granted by the Industrial Court within the four corners of its jurisdiction. 3 10. No error of law or of jurisdiction vitiating impugned judgment and that of Industrial Court is shown. 11. In the result, it would sheerly vexing the respondents to bring before the Court. The appeal does not have merit. 12. In this situation, application for condonation of delay is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE |Muley|