1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (Z) NO. 287 OF 2009 IN L.P.A. (St.) No. 6516/09 in W.P. NO.775/2006(D) (State of Mah. Through SDO, Gondia ..s.. Radheshyam Kashiram Pardhi) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Smt. T.D.Khade, A.G.P. for Applicant-Appellant. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1 year and 98 days. 3. Upon hearing, this Court has considered it appropriate to scrutinize the merits of the Appeal. The point of view behind such scrutiny is that, if there be no merit in the appeal, no notice on this application be issued. However, if there be no merit, the respondent would be unnecessarily brought before the Court, would loose his time and money and would there be vexed. This Court has, therefore, heard the appeal on merits. 4. The finding of learned Single Judge, which have aggrieved the petitioner, are as follows : “The perusal of the order impugned reveals that the 2 respondent/complainant had worked for the year 1979-80 and thereafter, there are breaks in his service for the period from 1982-1988 and thereafter he has worked in the year 1989-90, 1889-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and upto 20/10/1994. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has recorded the findings correctly that the respondent complainant has worked continuously for the period of 5 years upto 20/10/1994.” 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has for demonstrating that these findings are erroneous, took this Court through the Judgment of learned Industrial Court. We find from the judgment of learned Industrial Court that distinct finding has been recorded in paragraph 6, which reads as follows : “Thereafter, there are breaks in his service for the period 1982 to 1988, then he had worked for the year 1989-1990, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992,1993 and upto 20.10.1994. 6. Thus, it is a case where the finding that the respondent has worked continuously for 5 years between 1989 to 1994, is a concurrent fact finding. 7. The records pertaining to 1989 to 1994 were maintained by the petitioner-appellants herein. They have no grievance in respect thereof. Thus, in the given situation, as emerging from records, the writ petition was meritless, so is the case of present appeal. 8. In this situation, it would be wholly unnecessary to issue notice on this application to the respondent. If such notice is issued, it will 3 amount forcing the appellant to appear in this court, when there is no merit in the appeal and the respondent would be vexed for no fault on his part. 9. In the premise where the appeal is seen to be without merit, the application for condonation of delay is also without any merit and is liable to be dismissed is hereby dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale