:1: :1: :1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2007. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2006. Mahamadgaous Muktumsab Navraj Inamdar. ..Appellant. Versus. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the City of Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad...Respondents. --- Uday Warunjikar for the appellant. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2007. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2007. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. Perused the order dated 14th November 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also perused the order dated 24th April 2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ULP Complaint No. 67 of 2001. Certain benefits have been granted on the basis of a government resolution dated 8.6.1995, thereby the complainant is claiming deemed or notional benefits in the services. The complainant retired on superannuation on 28.5.1996 and thereafter the complaint has been filed in the year 2001. The particular government resolution upon which the claim :2: :2: :2: is based is of the year 1995, i.e., prior to the date of superannuation of the complainant. The complainant should have claimed those benefits immediately. The period of limitation for unfair labour practice is 6 months. Therefore, within the period of 6 months the complaint ought to have been filed. No doubt, on showing sufficient cause the complaint can be entertained. However, the complainant has stated that he made applications on 27.1.1999, 1.3.2001, 6.6.2001, 5.7.2001, 17.7.2001 and 13.8.2001 and thereafter gave notice and filed the complaint. All those aspects have been considered by the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, what is pertinent to be noted is that the first application appears to have been given on 27.1.1999, i.e., after four years of his retirement. No explanation is coming from the complainant as to why since 1995 onwards, or immediately after the retirement the claim as prayed in the complaint has not been made. What we find is that the Industrial Court was justified in holding that the complaint is time barred and it is not to be entertained. It further appears that the particular resolution of the Corporation, the benefit of which is claimed by the petitioner requires government sanction, as per the 1995 Government Resolution. Therefore, only because the respondent - Corporation has passed a resolution in favour of the complainant itself will not :3: :3: :3: be a sufficient ground to extend the benefits to him. On these two grounds the complaint has been rejected. Both these grounds have been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 14th November 2006. We do not find any ground for interference. Therefore, we refuse to entertain in this Letters Patent Appeal, it is hereby dismissed. (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) :sachin/2007/vkt/..