(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 248 OF 2011 The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus Ravindra s/o. Prabhatrao Autade, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Gormala, Taluka : Bhoom, District : Osmanabad, and 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 249 OF 2011 The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus Subhash s/o. Sopanrao Katkar, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Laxminagar, Bhoom, Taluka : Bhoom, Dist. : Osmanabad, and 10 others. .. Respondents. (2) ........................ WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 250 OF 2011 The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus Sopan s/o. Dnyanoba Gajare, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Pathrud, Taluka : Bhoom, District : Osmanabad, and 11 others. .. Respondents. .............................. Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate, for the petitioner, in the three petitions. ............................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2011 (3) COURT'S ORDER : 1. The two orders passed by the Industrial Court are in question before this Court. By the first order dated 3-12-2010, application of the petitioner, to frame preliminary issue regarding limitation and to decide it, has been rejected. By the second order dated 7-1-2011, application of the petitioner, to permit cross examination of respondent / complainant, is also rejected. 2. It is not in dispute, that respondent / complainant has not entered into witness box and has refused to examine himself in chief. As such, there is no question of he being subjected to any cross examination. The orders passed by the Industrial Court, therefore, do not call for interference. 3. The complaint is on the basis of Clause 49 of the Settlement of 1956. The issue of applicability of limitation, in so far as Item 9, Schedule IV, of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, is concerned, is settled by Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Premlal s/o. Khatri Gajbhiye (2003(3) Mh.L.J. 1025). The Full Bench has found that, in such circumstances, the cause of action is continuous. The view is also upheld by the Apex Court. (4) 4. I, therefore, do not find that a case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp248etc