FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION No.6730 OF 2006. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Court or Judge’s Order. Memorandum of Coram : apperance,Court’s : Orders & Directions : and Registrar’s : Order. : -------------------------------------------------------------------- N.G. Halekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. CORAM:R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. DATED:5TH DATED:5TH DATED:5TH DECEMBER,2006. DECEMBER,2006. DECEMBER,2006. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below while restoring the complaint for final hearing. The order which has been passed, has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 31(2) of the M.R.T.P. and P.U.L.P. Act,1971 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Obviously, the discretion has been exercised judiciously while condoning the delay and affording [ 2 ] opportunity to the complainant to putforth the case on merits. Certainly rights of the petitioner to contest the complaint on merits is duly reserved. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments do not disclose any jurisdictional error on the part of the Labour Court or the Industrial Court in restoring the complaint. their Being so, there is no case for interference made out by the petitioner for exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Constitution. Hence the petition is rejected. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.]