1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2010 Rajendra s/o Jagannath Sonawane .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENT Mr. Amol Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is a petition raising exception to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik on 19-11-2009 in application no. Misc/JAL/14/2008. 2 Respondent no. 3 who is the employee has approached the tribunal complaining about the alleged oral termination effected by the employer dt. 7-1-2008. It is the contention of respondent no. 3 in the application tendered to the tribunal seeking condonation of delay that infact the 2 employee was suffering from ailment and as such, could not take prompt steps for presentation of the appeal. It is also contended that the employee tried to secure copies of certain documents, however, those were not supplied to her by the management and as such, there occurred some delay. Considering the application tendered by the applicant, the learned Presiding Officer of the tribunal condoned the delay occurred in presenting the appeal and directed registration of the appeal. 3 Considering the date mentioned in the memorandum of appeal in respect of accrual of cause of action which is 7-1-2008, the delay occurred in presenting the appeal appears to be hardly of six months. Considering the contentions raised by the appellant, the tribunal on recording reasons has allowed the application. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner / management are essentially the matters in respect of merits of the controversy. It would be open for the tribunal to take into consideration the rival contentions those would be raised by the parties while dealing with the matter in accordance with their own merit. In respect of absence of the employee for a duration of more than two years, obviously, it would be the responsibility of the employee to satisfy the tribunal by leading appropriate and convincing evidence. In exercise of extra 3 ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition stands rejected. 4 Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2042.10.odt