The legal principle established is that 'good and sufficient reasons' for delay should be bona fide and true reasons, and the time spent before any Authority or Tribunal having the trappings of a Court can be taken into consideration for excluding the time under section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The order passed by the Labour Court refusing to condone the delay in filing a complaint under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the said Act) is under challenge. Said order has been confirmed by the Industrial Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

3. The petitioner was employed with the respondent-Bank on the post of Senior Clerk. During the course of service, enquiry proceedings were initiated against him vide Charge-sheet dated 21-12-2006. The proceedings thereafter led to an order of termination dated 15-2-2008. The petitioner received copy of said order on 19-2-2008 and thereafter approached the Labour Commissioner (Central) at Nagpur by filing proceedings on 29-2-2008. On an objection being raised by the respondent that the appropriate Government was the State Government, an order came to be passed on 16-6-2008 upholding said preliminary objection and holding that the appropriate Government was the State Government. According to the petitioner, he then approached the Labour Court at Pune by filing a complaint under section 28 of the said Act. In those proceedings, a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction was framed and on 3-12-2011, the application for condonation of delay was rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. After receiving the certified copy of said order on 2-1-2012, the petitioner filed the present proceedings under section 28 of the said Act along with an application for condonation of delay.

4. The respondent filed its reply to aforesaid application and took the stand that no sufficient cause had been made out for condoning the delay. It was further stated that though the petitioner was aware that the jurisdiction vested with the Court at Nagpur, the proceedings were filed at Pune. The Labour Court after considering the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting his case and, therefore, there was no ground to condone the delay. The Industrial Court in the revision application filed by the petitioner confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court and rejected the revision application. These orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Shri S.R. Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts erred in not accepting the reasons assigned by the petitioner for the delay as caused. He submitted that on the basis of legal advise received, the proceedings had been filed by him initially before the Labour Commissioner (Central) and thereafter at Pune. He submitted that said proceedings had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and merely because it was found that the said Forum had no jurisdiction, the same would not be a reason to refuse to condone the delay. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Sarathy vs. State Bank of India, (2000) 5 SCC 355 as well as the judgment of learned Single Judge in Jankiram Pandharinath Thorat vs. Akot Municipal Council and another, 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 702.

6. Per contra, Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the submissions. He submitted that the delay as caused was on account of the petitioner's invoking jurisdiction of those Forums which admittedly did not have jurisdiction. He submitted that the petitioner was well aware that the Labour Court at Pune had no jurisdiction and that the appropriate Government was the State Government. He submitted that the entire attempt of the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of various forums was in fact, an exercise of forum shopping and, therefore, both the Courts were justified in not condoning the delay. He placed reliance on judgment of the Division Bench in Vikas Textiles vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, 1990 (1) CLR 257 and Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Hira Lal Ramchand