1.0 This petition is directed against the order rendered in appeal by the Industrial Court and the order rendered by the third Labour Court, Surat in T. application No. 51 of 1990 in Appeal ( I.C.) No. 6 of 1997 whereby the appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed.
2.0 The facts of case are that the Government of India on guidelines issued by the ILO devise a project of Family Welfare in Cooperative Sugar Factories and selected factories for its implementation and its duration was upto 30.06.1988. On 18.12.1986 the petitioner was appointed as Family Welfare Educator. On 13.10.1988, the duration of the project was extended upto 30.06.1989 and respondent Mandli and other cooperative factories involved were informed that Family Welfare Educators were to be continued and their costs were to be borne by Sugar factories. On 25.05.1989/01.06.1989, services of petitioner were discontinued by the respondent Mandli without making any order. On 07.06.1989 Project Director informed the Labour Office of the Mandli to solve the problem about termination of services of the petitioner. On 31.10.1989 Project Director requested Mandli for continuance of petitioner’s services. In the meantime, the respondent Mandli informed the Project Directors that the petitioner has abandoned services. In February 1990, the petitioner filed T. Application in Labour Court, Surat. On 06.02.1997 the T. application was rejected against which appeal has been preferred which came to be dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that in spite of several requests, the application was not considered and the application was rejected only on the ground of delay.
4.0 Learned advocate appearing for the respondents supported the order of the Labour Court and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record found that petitioner has not approached the Labour Court within stipulated period provided under Section 42(4) of Bombay Industrial Act, 1946 ( for short “the Act”) read with Rule 53 of the Rules. The time limit prescribed is mandatory. The petitioner has not given cogent and convincing reasons for the delay in question. The view taken by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
niru* (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)