1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 519/2011 (Murlidhar Amritrao Rekhate VERSUS The Commissioner of Agriculture Agriculture Commissionerate & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 4 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 13.09.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 13.09.2010 along with the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and the reply filed thereto, it appears that the Industrial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was appointed as a Tracer with the respondent and before his retirement, in the year 2001, i.e. on 05.12.2011, he received a communication from the respondent that he was not entitled to get benefits of Efficiency Bar from 01.06.1987 and was entitled to receive them only from 01.06.1994. 2 In the aforesaid communication, it was stated that the monetary benefits given to the petitioner in regard to the Efficiency Bar with effect from 01.06.1987 were liable to be recovered. The petitioner retired on 28.02.2002 and at that time, the amount, which was wrongly paid to the petitioner as benefits of Efficiency Bar with effect from 01.06.1987 was deducted from his retiral benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereafter moved the respondent by making communications on 21.01.2001, 25.04.2004, 02.09.2004, 07.09.2004, 21.01.2005, 15.06.2006 and 25.06.2007 but, his communications were not replied to, by the respondents. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that he made complaints to the Lok-Ayukta in November- 2007, in March-2008 and in July-2009. The petitioner thereafter filed the complaint along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint on 11.01.2010. The Industrial Court rightly held that the cause of action arose to the petitioner for the first time on 05.12.2001 when he was informed by the respondent that he was not entitled to get the benefits of the Efficiency Bar with effect from 01.06.1987 and that was not a continuous cause of action. The amount allegedly wrongly paid to the petitioner was deducted from his retiral benefits at the time of his retirement in February-2002. Though, this happened in the year 2002, the complaint was belatedly filed in January-2010 stating therein that the petitioner was continuously approaching the respondents till the year 2007 vide his communications but, the communications remained unanswered. Mere issuance of communications to the respondents would not be sufficient cause for condoning 3 the delay in filing the complaint. As soon as the first or second communication issued by the petitioner remained unanswered, it was necessary for the petitioner to have filed a complaint before the Industrial Court. However, this was not done and the complaint was filed almost after a period of nine years from the receipt of the communication dated 05.12.2001, the date on which the cause of action arose. The complaint was hopelessly barred by time and the cause of action was also not a continuous cause of action. In such circumstances, the Industrial Court did not commit any error, much less, a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. The order appears to be just and proper. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE