(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1824 OF 2011 Mr. Haribhau s/o. Ramrao Shirsath, Aged 44 years, Occupation : Unemployed, R/o. Gangadevi Post, Taluka : Ashti, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus M/s. Fouress Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., 27, Friends Colony, Station Road, Aurangabad. .. Respondent. ....................... Smt. P.U. Sawaji, Advocate, holding for Shri U.S. Sawaji, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Smt. P.U. Sawaji, holding for Adv. Shri (2) U.S. Sawaji, for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27-6-2000, passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 39/1989, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against his dismissal from service. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 13-6-2005, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision (ULP) No. 70/2000, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order of Labour Court. 3. Contention is, as required by Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short, "1971 Act"), petitioner was not given opportunity to address disciplinary authority. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any such stipulation in Section 28 of 1971 Act. Both the courts below i.e. Labour Court and Industrial Court have concurrently answered the issues against the petitioner. 4. The judgment dated 13-6-2005 passed by the Industrial Court is questioned before this court in Writ Petition (3) filed almost after five years. The delay and laches are sought to be explained by filing a separate affidavit by stating that papers were handed over to Advocate and the same were later on misplaced. The name of Advocate is not disclosed. 5. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1824