1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7711 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. P.V.Barde, Advocate for Petitioner. ........................... [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 20/11/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30/9/2009 vide which the complaint filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected. 2. The complainant, who claims to be employed in the Zilla Parishad, had approached the learned Industrial Court, Ahmednagar praying therein that an act on behalf of Zilla Parishad in not absorbing the petitioner in view of the Kalelkar’s Award Settlement, amounts to unfair labour practice. The said complaint is rejected. 2 Being aggrieved by it, the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Barde, the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the complaint on hyper technical ground that the documents which were produced, were uncertified xerox copies. He submits that the learned Industrial Court has not taken into consideration that though an application was filed by the present petitioner for direction to the respondent to produce the record, no order was passed therein. He further submits that subsequently, on an application filed by the present petitioner, he was granted inspection of the documents and the documents which were produced before the learned Industrial Court, were xerox copies of the record which was inspected by the petitioner. He submits that these factors are not taken into consideration by the learned Industrial Court. 4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the complainant is rejected on the ground that the complainant had approached the learned Industrial Court after the period 3 of 22 years from the date of his alleged dis-continuation. 5. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that the discretion which was exercised by the learned Industrial Court, was exercised in perversity. As no perversity is noticed, interference does not warrant. Hence, rejected. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7711.09