IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3328/2009 Pimpalner Education Society & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus Hemantkumar Bhauji Bahiram & another. ...Respondents... ..... Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioners. Shri V.B. Jagtap, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE: 10.06.2009 PER COURT: By way of present writ petition, petitioners challenge the order dated 2.4.2009 by which the application filed by the respondent no.1-employee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order of termination came to be allowed. Shri Hon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, submits that the learned tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the application for condonation of delay. He submits that there is no sufficient explanation for not approaching the Tribunal within the period of limitation. He submits that though in an earlier round of litigation, this Court had directed the learned Tribunal to take into consideration the pleadings of the parties before passing an order on application for condonation of delay, the same has not been done. It is the second round of litigation. In earlier round, this Court, vide order dated 14.9.2007, had remanded the matter and directed the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The matter of condonation of delay is within the discretion of the learned tribunal. Unless it is found that the discretion has been exercised in a perverse manner, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the same merely if it finds that another view is possible. The learned Tribunal has given cogent and sound reasons for condoning the delay. It has been found that the respondent no.1 – employee was prosecuting his remedy before the Education Department and when he could not get any relief from the authorities of the Education Department, he preferred an appeal. In any case, the delay is only of 45 days. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the sound discretion exercised by the learned tribunal. Hence, the petition is rejected. (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c106097