Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second and third respondents pertaining to the Claim Case No.3345 of 1987, on the file of the Commissioner of Payments, Government of Pondicherry, dated 110. 2002, quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay the entire service benefits, as per the petitioners representation, dated 8. 2002, for the period from 26. 1974 to 30.6.1983. 3. The petitioner has stated that he had joined in the Anglo French Textiles Corporation Limited, an undertaking of the Government of Pondicherry, as a Fitter-trainee in the year, 1971. Thereafter, he was a casual substitute fitter from 1972 to 1974. In the year 1983, the Anglo French Textiles Mill was locked-out. Even though it had been reopened in the year 1986, the petitioner was not considered to be an employee and his service benefits were not settled. In spite of several representations having been sent by the petitioner, there was no response from the Management of the Mill. Therefore, the petitioner had made a claim before the Management of the Anglo French Textiles Mill for the settlement of his dues for the period during which he was in service. The Mill had been nationalized by the Government of India and subsequently, it came under the control of the Government of Pondicherry, the first respondent herein. As per the provisions of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986, the claim of the petitioner should have been made within thirty days from the specified date, namely, 6. 1986. However, the petitioner has preferred the claim only on 212. 1987, as per the letter, dated 29. 2001, issued by the second respondent. Since the petitioner is an illiterate person, he could not make the claim petition within the stipulated period, as provided under section 15 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986. However, the second respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner, as belated and time barred. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. However, the second respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner, as belated and time barred. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner ought to have made his claims, as provided under Section 15 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986, which reads as follows: "15. Claims to be made to the Commissioner:-Every person having a claim against the owner of the textile undertaking shall prefer such claim before the Commissioner within thirty days from the specified date: Provided that if the Commissioner is satisfied that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the claim within the said period of thirty days, he may entertain the claim within a further period of thirty days but not thereafter." 5. Since the specified date had been notified by the Government of Pondicherry, as 6. 1986, the petitioner ought to have made his claims within thirty days from the said date. The Commissioner, before whom the claims were to be made, may entertain the claims within a further period of thirty days, if he was satisfied that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the claims within the initial period of thirty days granted to him. However, no further extension of time could be granted by the Commissioner thereafter. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has further submitted that section 15 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986, has been held to be valid by a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 23. 1997, made in W.A.No.819 of 1991 (Harisivaprakasam Vs. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, labour Department, New Delhi and others). In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, it is seen that section 15 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986, has specified the time limit for making the claims. Thirty days time had been granted from the specified date to prefer the claims. Thirty days time had been granted from the specified date to prefer the claims. If the Commissioner is satisfied that the claimant was prevented, by sufficient cause, from preferring the claim within the said period of thirty days, he may entertain the claim within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. 8. It is not in dispute that the specified date is 6. 1986 and that the petitioner had preferred the claim, belatedly, only on 212. 1987, beyond the time limit specified by Section 15 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986. Further, section 15 of the the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986, has been held to be valid, by an order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 23. 1997, made in W.A.No.819 of 1991 (Harisivaprakasam Vs. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, labour Department, New Delhi and others). In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.