IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2336 OF 2009 The Veerashaiva Co-op. Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Ramesh Shankar Mahore .. Respondent --- Shri V.P. Vaidya for Petitioner Shri Sandesh Deshpande for Respondent. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 24TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. The Petitioner is a co-operative bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and under the Banking Regulations Act. 2. The Respondent was appointed as a clerk of the Petitioner Bank. By this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application filed by the Respondent under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, whereby the Industrial Court was pleased to condone the delay of 4 ½ years caused in filing the complaint by the Respondent under the MRTU and PULP Act before the Labour Court. 3. Brief facts are as under: The Respondent tendered his resignation with effect from 5th February, 2003 which was accepted by the Petitioner in May, 2003. It is the case of the Respondent that before the resignation was accepted, on 2nd May,2003 he had applied for withdrawal of the said resignation. As a result of acceptance of resignation by the Petitioner Bank, the Respondent filed a complaint of unfair labour practice in March, 2007 along with an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, it was alleged that due to paucity of funds and because he was jobless and had family responsibilities, the complaint could not be filed in time. The Labour Court dismissed his application for condonation of delay on the ground that the sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay of 4 ½ years in filing a complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent preferred a revision application under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial court, however, allowed the revision application. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Industrial Court, Petitioner has filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the Industrial Court has not given any reason for condoning the unusual delay of 4 ½ years in filing the complaint. He submitted that only ground given in the application for codonation of delay was that the Complainant was jobless and had family responsibilities and that he had approached the Labour Officer in 2005 seeking a reference to the Industrial Court. However, since the provisions of BIFR Act were applicable, no reference was made and that he had, therefore, approached the wrong forum. He submitted that no material was placed on record to show that in fact, the Respondent had approached the Labour Officer in 2005. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the order of the Industrial Court and submitted that no case is made out for interfering with the aforesaid order. 6. In my view, the Industrial Court had clearly erred in condoning the delay for 4 ½ years in filing the complaint. No reasons have been assigned by the Industrial Court while condoning the delay except, stating that the Applicant had approached various Forum under a bonafide belief and that he had financial constraints and on these two grounds, delay was condoned. The Industrial Court had clearly erred in holding that these grounds were sufficient for condoning the delay of more than 4 years in filing the complaint. Admittedly, no material was brought on record to show that the Respondent had approached any other forum before filing the complaint in 2005. Secondly, mere financial constraints cannot be said to be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that in fact, the Respondent had submitted a fabricated marksheet and as a result, an enquiry was to be held against him and a criminal complaint was also to be filed. However, at that time, Respondent submitted his resignation and nearly after 4 ½ years the complaint was filed. 8. In my view, therefore, the Industrial Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Labour Court by exercising its jurisdiction under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10th December, 2008 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 243 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. V.M. KANADE J.