1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 527/2010. ( The Superintending Engineer and others -: versus :- Murlidhar D. Gokhle ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2010. Heard Shri V.A. Thakre, learned A.G.P. for petitioners. Contention is respondent filed his ULPA Complaint almost after 11 years. He was brought on CRTE in 1983 and he challenged that action in 1994, contending that he could have been brought on CRTE not as majoor but as clerk. Industrial Court has accepted that grievance. I have also heard Shri Thakre, learned A.G.P. about the latches in the matter, because impugned judgment is dated 21.02.2004. Shri Thakre, learned A.G.P. has invited attention to paragraph no.5 of the Writ Petition to explain the same. Said paragraph states that on 29.12.2004 Government did not approve filing of Writ Petition to challenge the said judgment. Thereafter it has been further disclosed that on 20.04.2009 Government decided to challenge that judgment. Thus there is change of decision after 4 years. 2 In view of the findings of facts reached by the Industrial Court in the matter, I do not find any ground made out warranting interference. This Court has already considered the position of employees brought on CRTE in its judgment dated 01.02.2010 delivered in Writ Petition No. 2563/2009. In any case as the provisions of Kalelkar Settlement were not rightly implemented, the breach continued and hence mere delay in filing complaint could not have held to be fatal. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra SRTC. .vrs. Premlal (2007) 9 SCC 141 clinches the issue. I do not find any case made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed on merits as also on latches. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.