JUDGMENT:- By this petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / original complainant is taking exception to the order passed by the Member Industrial Court dated 30.7.1998 in Complaint ULPA 27/1997. 2. The complainant had filed the complaint under section 28 read with item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act No.1 of 1972 alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour practice by not absorbing the complainant in the respondent - establishment as per Settlement Subject No.69 dated 25.4.1956. It was the case of the petitioner/ complainant that he was at the relevant time, working in Tiwari Transport, Bhandara as Helper. He was working during the period from 1.1.1973 to 31.12.1974. The said Tiwari Transport was thereafter was taken over by way of nationalization by the respondent in the year 1974 & the licence of Private Operator i.e. Tiwari Transport was therefore, cancelled. There was settlement between Tiwari Transport and the respondent to absorb employees working in the said Tiwari Transport Company. According to the complainant; he preferred an application for the post of Conductor because of retrenchment from Tiwari Transport Bhandara. He had obtained licence for Conductor and therefore, according to him, as per the settlement; he was entitled for the post of Conductor in the respondent establishment. 3. According to him as he was not so absorbed nor was he appointed, respondent had indulged in unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. He therefore, prayed that direction to the respondents be issued to absorb the complainant either as Helper or Conductor at least from the date of filing of the complaint inasmuch as the complaint was filed late. 4. Respondent had opposed the complaint. The opposition was on many grounds. Suffice it to say that it was the case of the case of respondents that the complainant was not working as an employee in erstwhile Tiwari Transport and the application was submitted belatedly. It was also sought to make out a case that he was intending to get appointment as Conductor, the post for which he was not eligible. 5. It may be stated that during the course of proceedings, evidence of the complainant was recorded. It was also sought to make out a case that he was intending to get appointment as Conductor, the post for which he was not eligible. 5. It may be stated that during the course of proceedings, evidence of the complainant was recorded. Considering the evidence as well as other material on record, the learned Member, Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for absorption either as Helper or Conductor as prayed. On the issue of limitation, learned Industrial Court however, decided in favour of the complainant. 6. The final order passed by the Member Industrial Court, Nagpur was to dismiss the complaint of the petitioner. 7. This order is challenged in this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as this was a case of absorption on account of Settlement between the erstwhile transporter and the respondents. Under clause 69, there was no question of making any application by the petitioner for such absorption. According to him, complainant/ petitioner was eligible for appointment as conductor. He has relied on some authorities to contend that the period of limitation has no bearing for filing such application inasmuch as the cause of action was continuing, more so; under article 127 of the Limitation Act. I would like to refer the authorities referred by him at the later stage of judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that though the settlement is not disputed, there was no whisper in the complaint at all that the petitioner was working as Conductor in Tiwari Transport Company which was taken over by the respondent. According to him, Tiwari Transport had not intimated the respondent that petitioner was working with it. As such it was for the petitioner to make out a case that he was working as Helper or the Conductor in the said Tiwari Transport, so as to seek absorption. According to him, the complaint preferred by the petitioner was hopelessly time barred inasmuch as the alleged absorption was to be in the year 1974, immediately after taking over of Tiwari Transport some time after 1974. According to him further, the petitioner had never applied for the post of Conductor. In fact he was not eligible at all. According to him, the complaint preferred by the petitioner was hopelessly time barred inasmuch as the alleged absorption was to be in the year 1974, immediately after taking over of Tiwari Transport some time after 1974. According to him further, the petitioner had never applied for the post of Conductor. In fact he was not eligible at all. Even if his claim was not considered in 1989, he did not prefer the complaint for asking to desist from unfair labour practice ti1 1994 and according to him, even if it is assumed for a moment that there was no particular period of limitation prescribed for such instances, the stale claim can not be entertained. According to him, therefore, the view taken by the learned Industrial Court in this regard is not correct. 10. To counter this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has not raised any grievance on this aspect and therefore, same can not be considered. 11. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the relevant settlement. The terms of the settlement, particularly Clause 69 has been extracted by the complainant himself, which reads thus: DEMAND 69. Workers working with Private operators should be taken in S.T. Service from date of taking over the route permit on the same job for which they used to work within private operator. They should be considered as permanent SETTLEMENT Drivers, Conductors and other employeess from the old operators who are absorbed in S.T. will commence their service and be put on Time Scale from the date they join S.T. Service and will earn their next increment in addition to the advance increments, if any, as mentioned at the end of the first year of their service. Assurance given to absorb bonafide employee of old operator will be implemented. Thus, it would be seen that only bonafide employees were to be absorbed by respondent. 12. The crucial question in this case would be whether the complainant/petitioner had established that he was bonafide employee of erstwhile Tiwari Transport. In that context it is necessary to see what the complainant has stated in his complaint. It has been stated that the complainant is making his complaint in the capacity of the employee. Complainant was working in Tiwari Transport Bhandara as Helper. In that context it is necessary to see what the complainant has stated in his complaint. It has been stated that the complainant is making his complaint in the capacity of the employee. Complainant was working in Tiwari Transport Bhandara as Helper. Thereafter, saying that said Transport Operator was taken over by the respondent corporation and the respondent corporation had given assurance to absorb the bonafide employee; it has been stated that it being a matter of absorption, the complainant is entitled to make complaint in the capacity of an employee. Respondent is an appointing authority for the post of helper and representative of the M.S.R.T.C. for its Bhandara Division. He has stated that unfair labour practice being committed by respondent was continuous one. He has specifically stated that he was working in Tiwari Transport as Helper during the period from 1.1.1973 to 31.12.1974 . There is no whisper in the complainant that he was working as Conductor. Except that, he is entitled to be appointed as Conductor as he is having a licence. In this connection in paragraph 3 of the complaint he has stated thus: "Therefore, the complainant had made an application for employment. The applications were made for the post of Conductor for the reason that after retrenchment from Tiwari Transport Bhandara the complainant had also obtained Conductor's licence." It definitely means that at the time of taking over of the Tiwari Transport, by the respondent, the complainant was working only as Helper and not as Conductor. Therefore, as per settlement at the most he could have been absorbed as Helper. 13. He has also stated that the complainant had made application in the prescribed form, however, applications of the complainant have not been taken into consideration so far. He had personally contacted in the office at several times, but did not receive any response. 14. Vis-a-vis this; evidence led by him, needs to be seen. He has stated in examination-in-chief thus: "In the year 1973-74 I was working in Tiwari Transport as a Helper. I worked w.e. from 1.1.73 to 31.12.74. In view of Nationalization of Transport Business my company was claimed. I produced the xerox copy of the certificate issued by my company. it is at Exh.12, I was called for interview by the Respondent on 8.12.1987, I produced that order. It is at Exh.13. I worked w.e. from 1.1.73 to 31.12.74. In view of Nationalization of Transport Business my company was claimed. I produced the xerox copy of the certificate issued by my company. it is at Exh.12, I was called for interview by the Respondent on 8.12.1987, I produced that order. It is at Exh.13. Then again I was called for interview by letter dated 11.1.89 by the respondent. It is at Exh.14. In view of my applications I received these call for interview. Respondent appointed number of person from our company. It is my prayer that I may be appointed with the respondent with consequential benefits." 15. In cross-examination he has stated that he had made compliance of letter exhibit 33. He had received exhibit 14 later on and after receipt of exhibit 14 he did not receive any response to letter dated 11.11.1989 and thereafter after 11.11.1989; he filed this case in this court in 1994. 16. In further cross-examination he has stated that he is having licence of Conductor, but did not remember its date and he denied the suggestion that he was not having such licence as such same is not filed on record. It is needless to mention that this licence of conductor has not been filed on record by the petitioner, even after that evidence and even in the course of hearing of this petition, though at the time of arguments, it was told that it can be produced at any point of time. Fact remains that at the time decision of the instant complaint, there was no licence of conductor produced by petitioner on record. 17 With this, background, the prayer of the complainant needs to be seen. In prayer (a) he has stated that - It may be declared that the respondent has engaged in / has been engaging in unfair labour practice and in prayer (b) he has asked for the relief that - to direct the respondent to absorb the petitioner in the services of the respondent M.S.R.T.C. Corporation either of the Labour or Conductor at least w.e.f. the date of this complaint with consequential benefits. 18. It would be seen from the evidence that the petitioner complainant has failed to produce the eligibility document for his appointment as Conductor. 19. 18. It would be seen from the evidence that the petitioner complainant has failed to produce the eligibility document for his appointment as Conductor. 19. Petitioner has contended that respondent had sent two letters i.e. on 23.9.1987 and 11.1.1989 which according to him, were in response to his applications. It is needless to say that subject mentioned in exhibit 62 the communication is for making application in prescribed form. It does not show that applicant had made any application in prescribed form for appointment as Conductor and he was called for interview. In fact, there is no case of the petitioner, much less proved that he was working as Conductor in the erstwhile employment, even his complaint does show that after retrenchment he had obtained licence of Conductor. Therefore at any rate; request preferred by petitioner to get appointment as Conductor has to be only on the basis of his application for being appointed as Conductor with eligibility criteria and not on the basis of his erstwhile employment in Tiwari Transport. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in contending that these letters can not be in any way termed as an interview letters. Said letters only say that if petitioner want to seek an employment as Conductor in Corporation, he would have to comply with these conditions mentioned in these letters. It does not seem that the petitioner has complied with this. The first letter is of 23.9.1987 and 11.1.1989. In these two years what happened is not made known by petitioner. The fact remains that there is nothing on record to suggest anything as to what he has done in these two years period. Later on he has preferred his complaint in 1994, which is obviously a very stale and highly belated complaint. 21. The impugned order shows that point of limitation was answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondent and the respondent has not preferred any proceeding to challenge that finding. Therefore, I need not to dwell on that issue, but it needs to be mentioned that staleness of the complaint for the grievance of the petitioner would definitely dis-entitle him from claiming relief as claimed. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1984 Labour Industrial Cases 1721 Regional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur and another Vs. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1984 Labour Industrial Cases 1721 Regional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur and another Vs. Regional Secretary, Maharashtra State Transport Kamgar Sanghatana, Karanja, wherein the question of absorption and how it has to be implemented was considered. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of this court reported in 2001(2) CLR 250 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bhandara Vs. Maharashtra S.T. Kamgar Sanghatana, Bhandara, wherein this aspect was also considered along with other aspects. 23. As against this, learned counsel for respondent has rightly relied on the observations of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 5 SCC 91 , Haryana State Co-op. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, wherein in paragraph 13, it is observed thus: "13. In Ajaib Singh the management did not raise any plea of delay. The Court observed that had such plea been raised, the workman would have been in a position to show the circumstances which prevented him from approaching the court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the court that such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was made by the Government. In that case, the Labour Court granted the relief, but the same was denied to the workman only by the High Court. The Court referred to the purport and object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act only with a view to find out as to whether the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act,1963 are applicable or not. Although the court cannot import a period of limitation when the statue does not prescribe the same, as was observed in Ajaib Singh, but it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the appropriate Government while making a reference or in a case where such reference is made the workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the Labour Court." 24. He has also relied rightly on the judgment reported in 2006(6) SCC 331, Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma, wherein in paragraphs 19,20, 21,'it has been observed thus: "19. The respondent has worked only for 58 days. There is no cross-examination on this aspect. He has also relied rightly on the judgment reported in 2006(6) SCC 331, Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma, wherein in paragraphs 19,20, 21,'it has been observed thus: "19. The respondent has worked only for 58 days. There is no cross-examination on this aspect. It is also not out of place herein to mention that Respondent 1 was discharged in July, 1976 and the Central Government referred the matter for adjudication on 25.1.1989 nearly after 13 years. 20. The case of Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Workmen in turn, refers to the judgment in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and S. M. Nilajkar Vs. Telecom District Manager. This Court held that even though there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an Industrial Tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred to as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen. This Court has held that a delay of four years in raising the dispute even after re-employment of most of the old workmen was held to be fatal. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd.Case this Court held a delay of seven years to be fatal and dis-entitled the workmen to any relief. 21.In our opinion, a dispute which is stale could not be a subject matter of reference." 25. Even if it is assumed for a moment that period of limitation may not be applicable in such cases, still in view of the observations of the Apex Court, courts would be slow to entertain such highly belated grievances. Here is a case where the complainant allegedly should have been absorbed some time in 1975, but it appears that his grievance has cropped in the year 1987 to 1989 upon which respondents had written a letter asking petitioner to comply with the necessary requirement. He did not do so. Even thereafter till 1994 he did not prefer any complaint for the redressal from the Industrial court, in accordance with law. It only means that at the relevant time he was not at all interested in prosecuting remedy for redressal of his grievance, but as respondent has not preferred any proceeding to challenge the said finding against it, I do not propose to throw away this petition on that ground. 26. It only means that at the relevant time he was not at all interested in prosecuting remedy for redressal of his grievance, but as respondent has not preferred any proceeding to challenge the said finding against it, I do not propose to throw away this petition on that ground. 26. As regards the merits, I have already pointed out that the grievance of the complainant / petitioner was in respect of his appointment in pursuance to the settlement. Learned Member, Industrial Court has rightly found that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was in the employment of Tiwari Transport as Conductor. Therefore, he could not be appointed as Conductor. As regards helper, there appears no evidence on record to suggest that he was so working to get an absorption in pursuance to the settlement. The evidence in this regard would show that he has relied on the xerox copy of the certificate issued by the company. There is nothing on record to show that any reliable document of his service with Tiwari Transport was produced. It does not appear that Tiwari Transport had any way informed the respondent about the employees including this petitioner. The complainant himself obtained certificate from his company, therefore, he should have the information about the persons as to how they (other employees) were appointed and should have examined them. In any case, it was for the erstwhile transport company to inform the names of its employee or employees to inform their employment with the erstwhile transport company to the respondent corporation to avail benefit of settlement terms. Such type of practice that employees approaching directly without any satisfactory evidence of his employment with the erstwhile transport company, can not be approved. 27. The very fact that some of the employees of the company or the complainant were absorbed demonstrates that respondent was not averse to the appointment of the petitioner/complainant or at least there appears no malafides on the part of the respondent. Fact remains that complainant has failed to establish that he was bonafide employee of the erstwhile Tiwari Transport Company and therefore, he had lost in the proceedings filed by him for redressal in the complaint before the Industrial Court as per settlement. 28. Fact remains that complainant has failed to establish that he was bonafide employee of the erstwhile Tiwari Transport Company and therefore, he had lost in the proceedings filed by him for redressal in the complaint before the Industrial Court as per settlement. 28. No doubt the Industrial Court has observed that there was no challenge to the evidence of the complainant and to the certificate exhibit 12 produced by Tiwari Transport Bhandara, it clearly appears that it was the xerox copy of the certificate issued as per evidence. There is nothing on record to show as to why this secondary evidence was adduced. Therefore, there is some reservation regarding the correctness of this finding. Needless to add that once the claim for absorption fails, he would not be entitled for back wages or any compensation. 29. Assurance given as per settlement is peculiar and it is an assurance given to absorb bonafide employee. It is the essential eligibility for implementing settlement as regards absorption. In the circumstances of this case, the complainant petitioner has failed to establish the same and as such it is not possible to allow this petition, the same is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.