1 wp-6225-09-group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 6225 OF 2009 Vivekanand Bhavanishankar Ulman ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Ms.Neeta Karnik Adv. for Petitioner Ms.Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri and Mr.Manish Upadhye Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... WITH W.P. NO. 6198 OF 2009 Ulhas Krishnarao Patkar ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Ms.Neeta Karnik Adv. for Petitioner Ms.Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri and Mr.Manish Upadhye Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... WITH W.P. NO. 6199 OF 2009 Shyam Murari Astana ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Ms.Neeta Karnik Adv. for Petitioner Ms.Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri and Mr.Manish Upadhye Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... 2 wp-6225-09-group WITH W.P. NO. 6200 OF 2009 Vithal Dattaram Zore ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Ms.Neeta Karnik Adv. for Petitioner Ms.Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri and Mr.Manish Upadhye Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... WITH W.P. NO. 6201 OF 2009 Murlidhar Anant Patwardhan ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Ms.Neeta Karnik Adv. for Petitioner Ms.Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri and Mr.Manish Upadhye Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-company in all the five matters. 2. According to the petitioners, they are workmen. Dispute regarding termination of service of the petitioners was pending adjudication before the IIIrd Labour Court at Mumbai. In the said proceedings 3 wp-6225-09-group before the Labour Court, the petitioners had preferred various applications for production of documents by the Respondent no.1- company. Respondents filed their replies therein wherein, it was stated that they are unable to produce the documents for various reasons stated therein. By order dated 26th June, 2008, the applications came to be rejected by the IIIrd Labour Court, Mumbai. These orders have been challenged by way of present petitions before this Court. 3. It is seen that the impugned orders are dated 26th June, 2008 whereas these petitions have been filed on 17th July, 2009 i.e. after a period of one year after passing of the said orders. As such, there is gross delay in filing the present petitions wherein the orders dated 26th June, 2008 are challenged. On the ground of delay alone these petitions are liable to be dismissed. Moreover, it is seen that after the order dated 26th June, 2008, no step or any attempt was made by the petitioners to challenge the said orders but on the other hand, they appeared before the Labour Court on the next date i.e. on 24th July, 2008 on which date, the issues came to be framed. Thereafter, certain applications came to be preferred by the petitioners for deletion of an issue. These applications were filed on 21st August, 2008. Thereafter, the matters proceeded before the Labour Court by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by some of the petitioners on 25th September, 2008. Thereafter, cross-examinations started. Thereafter the Transfer 4 wp-6225-09-group Applications came to be preferred by the petitioners on 5th February, 2009 stating therein that in view of the observations in the order dated 26th June, 2008 they apprehended that they would not get a fair disposal in the matter. All the Transfer Applications came to be rejected by the Industrial Court on 23rd April, 2009 and thereafter, these petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 26th June, 2008. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners were aggrieved by the orders dated 26th June, 2008, they preferred Transfer Applications. If at all the petitioners were really aggrieved by the order dated 26th June, 2008, the said order should have been specifically challenged. Filing of a transfer application can by no stretch of imagination be a remedy to set aside order dated 26th June, 2008. The orders dated 26th June, 2008 could not under any circumstances have been challenged by way of filing Transfer Applications. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were under belief that if the Transfer Applications are allowed, they would be able to redress their grievances before the Labour Court. Even as far as this submission is concerned, it is seen that even though observations were made against the petitioners in the order dated 26th June, 2008 the Transfer Applications were filed belatedly on 5th February, 2009 i.e. after about seven months of the order dated 26th June, 2008. Thus, this submission also 5 wp-6225-09-group appears to be an after thought and it shows that the petitioners were not really aggrieved by order dated 26th June, 2008. The fact that the petitioners appeared before the Labour Court on subsequent dates after 26th June, 2008 and participated in the proceedings as stated in paragraph 3 above, shows that the petitioners had infact acquiesced to the orders dated 26th June, 2008. 5. Thus, for a period of one year, no steps have been taken by the petitioners to challenge the orders dated 26th June, 2008 and on the other hand, it is seen that thereafter the petitioners had participated in the proceedings before the very same Labour Court for about seven months without making any attempt to challenge the orders dated 26th June, 2008 which shows they have acquiesced in the order dated 26th June, 2008. In view of the above, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference, hence, all the five writ petitions are dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]