wp4988.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4988/2011 Suresh Urkunda Awsare -vs- Dharampeth High School Junior College, Nagpur and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. W. Sambre, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17.11.2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on 18th of July, 2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioner claimed that he was working in the respondent No.1 as a sweeper since 09/01/1990 and his services were terminated on 01/04/1998. Instead of approaching the School Tribunal, it is the case of the petitioner that he wrongly approached the Labour Court and when the complaint filed before the Labour Court was dismissed on 8th of June, 2009 in view of the absence of jurisdiction to entertain the same, the petitioner approached the School Tribunal, wp4988.11.odt 2/3 Nagpur. According to the petitioner, since the delay in filing the complaint before the Labour Court was condoned by the Labour Court, the School Tribunal also ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Act on 10/08/2009. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it appears that the School Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay did not state any reason whatsoever for belatedly filing the appeal before the School Tribunal after a lapse of more than ten years. It is stated in the application that the petitioner approached the wrong forum i.e. the Labour Court and since the Labour Court had allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint and had granted the petitioner liberty to approach the School Tribunal, the delay needs to be condoned. The petitioner has not stated a single reason for belatedly approaching the Labour Court in the year 2005 against his alleged termination on 01/04/1998. Merely because the Labour Court had condoned the delay in filing the complaint, the petitioner could not have expected the Tribunal to condone the delay. The petitioner ought to have explained the delay from 01/04/1998 till the filing of the complaint before the Labour Court belatedly in the year 2005. Moreover, though the Labour Court dismissed the complaint on the wp4988.11.odt 3/3 ground of tenability of 08/06/2009, the petitioner filed the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay on 10/08/2009 without explaining the delay of more than two months. Though normally the Courts are expected to take a lenient view in the matter of condonation of delay, in the instant case the delay is gross and unexplained and hence, the School Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE