1 wp7452-10.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7452 OF 2010 Rajaram Jayvant Shelke .. Petitioner Vs. The Senior Manager / Personnel Manager, M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Sameer Paranjape for the petitioner Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Counsel a/w Ms.Prahi Mhatre i/b M/s.Bodhanwala and Co. for the respondents CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 19th JULY, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original applicant worker challenges the order dt.15.09.2009 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Pune in Misc. Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 2005 rejecting the petitioner’s application dt.23.9.2005 for condonation of delay as well as for restoration of his complaint (ULP) No. 120 of 1998 which was dismissed in default. 2 wp7452-10.doc 3. Initially, the petitioner original complainant filed complaint (ULP) No.120 of 1998 which was dismissed on 14.12.2001 for default as no one appeared on his behalf when the matter was called out. The petitioner learnt about it some time in 2005 and thereafter, he filed application on 22.9.2005 for certified copies of the order. On the next date, on 23.9.2005, he filed application for condonation of delay in making application for setting aside the dismissal order in complaint (ULP) No.120 of 1998 and for restoration of the said complaint. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge by impugned order dt. 15.09.2009 and held that .the petitioner failed to make out any sufficient cause for restoration of ULP No.120 of 1998. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has wrongly decided the petitioner’s application without framing separate issues in respect of condonation of delay and for restoration of the original complaint and without giving independent reasoning thereto. 5. I have gone through the application filed by the 3 wp7452-10.doc petitioner dt.23.9.05. In the said application, petitioner made prayer for condonation for delay of three years and 8 months as well as for restoration of complaint (ULP) No.120 of 1998. 6. The Labour Court considered the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. It is recorded by the Labour Court that petitioner relied on a certificate issued by Dr.Tongaonkar. The court further recorded that in the said certificate no where it is stated that the petitioner was bed ridden or unable to walk or do his work. Considering these facts, the Labour Court dismissed the petitioner’s application. 7. From the bare reading of the impugned order dt. 15.9.2009 it is clear that the Labour Court has considered the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay as well as for restoration and the same is decided on merits. Therefore, there is no question of framing separate issues to that effect. 8. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dt.15.09.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court who considered the facts placed before him. 4 wp7452-10.doc 9. Hence, petition is dismissed. (K.K.TATED,J.)