JUDGMENT : Milind N. Jadhav, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought to challenge the order passed by the Revision Court i.e. Industrial Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 21.11.2016 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 115/2013, inter alia, relating to the Petitioner's claim for seeking employment in the services of the Respondents. The Petitioner had initially filed Misc. ULP Application no. 32/2010 before the Labour Court, Nagpur which came to be dismissed on 14.10.2011. This application, essentially was for seeking reinstatement/employment with Respondent no. 1. The Petitioner also filed a separate application for seeking condonation of delay of 12 years. The application for condonation of delay came to be dismissed by a reasoned order. The Petitioner filed revision against the same, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 3. The facts of this case are a little peculiar. If such Petitions are allowed to be entertained under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, significantly a wrong message can be sent to the public at large. The peculiar facts firstly do not entitle the Petitioner any relief’s, but are required to be stated. 4. Sometime in the year 1997, Respondent no. 1 had published an advertisement for filling up vacancy of Clerks. It is the Petitioner's claim that he had responded to the advertisement and filed application for being appointed as Typist and he was called for an interview in the year 1998. The Petitioner has by way of pursis dated 20.03.2019 placed on record a copy of interview letter dated 01.02.2000 issued by Respondent no. 1 calling upon the Petitioner to present himself for interview for the post of Junior Clerk. Further, the Petitioner has also placed on record physical test call letter issued by Respondent no. 1 calling upon the Petitioner to present himself for physical test on 29.06.2004 for the post of Guard. On the basis of these two letters, the Petitioner has claimed right of employment as is evident from the pleadings before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court and sought directions from the Courts to the Respondents to appoint him. 5. The Petitioner has further claimed that he was directed to work in the Tax department of Respondent no. 1 and his said employment lasted for one month after which his services were terminated. 5. The Petitioner has further claimed that he was directed to work in the Tax department of Respondent no. 1 and his said employment lasted for one month after which his services were terminated. This fact is merely borne out from the pleadings and there is no documentary evidence of any nature whatsoever to corroborate or justify these facts. The Petitioner has based his claim significantly on the above facts and has therefore sought reinstatement before the two earlier Courts and also in the present Petition as a matter of fundamental right. The Petitioner had approached the Mayor of Nagpur who assured him that his services would be reinstated but since nothing was done, the Petitioner lost his mental balance thereafter. 6. Shri R.D. Hajare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner recovered his mental balance after a period of 12 years and thereafter filed Misc. U.L.P. application bearing no. 32/2010 before the Labour Court, Nagpur along with application for condonation of delay which came to be dismissed comprehensively by a reasoned and speaking order. The reasons given for dismissal of Misc. U.L.P. application and application for condonation of delay are material and go to the root of the matter. Paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment reads thus :- xxx xxx xxx 7. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner thereafter filed Revision application before the Industrial Court, Nagpur which was also comprehensively dismissed by a reasoned and speaking order dated 21.11.2016. On 20.03.2019, the Petitioner filed pursis wherein he has sought to rely upon the physical test call letter which is dated 2004 and necessarily this period comes within the 12 years period when the Petitioner first claims to have lost his mental balance. On going through the documents and pleadings with the help of learned counsels appearing for the parties, prima-facie, the Petitioner repeatedly has pleaded one and only one ground i.e. on account of him losing his mental balance, condonation of delay ought to have been granted by the Labour Court and had it been granted, he would have been reinstated. 8. It is pertinent to note that before both the Lower Courts, the Petitioner has not produced a shred of evidence whatsoever, despite both the Courts giving adequate opportunity to the Petitioner by framing point for consideration and giving reasons for determining the same. 8. It is pertinent to note that before both the Lower Courts, the Petitioner has not produced a shred of evidence whatsoever, despite both the Courts giving adequate opportunity to the Petitioner by framing point for consideration and giving reasons for determining the same. The reasons given by the Industrial Court in its judgment dated 21.11.2016 are material to decide the fate of this Writ Petition. Paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the said judgment reads thus :- "7. Here in this case, the petitioner has come before the court with a specific case that after following due procedure for appointment, that is after conducting interview the respondent No. 1 appointed him in the post of Junior Clerk/Typist in the year 1998. His appointment was on clear, vacant and sanction post. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before terminating his services it was the duty of the respondents to issue him show cause notice but no notice has been issued upon him before termination his service and his services came to be terminated orally and illegally. 8. It can be seen from the record that the petitioner filed his affidavit of evidence in support of his Misc. Application (ULP) No. 32/2010. The non-applicants also cross examined the petitioner and in his cross examination the petitioner given admissions, that no written order of appointment given to him. He even did not remember the date of his joining of his services in the establishment of the non-applicants, nor he remembered the date of his termination. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had challenged the alleged oral termination of the non-applicant No. 1 after about 12 years. The petitioner is educated upto 10th standard. It is an admitted fact for a period of 12 years, the petitioner remains silent in respect of his alleged termination. No prudent man would have remained silent for a long period, like the petitioner in the present case, and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Judge Third Labour Court, Nagpur that, the delay has not been explained satisfactorily, there is no sufficient cause or reasonable ground to condone delay, cannot be said illegal, improper or miscarriage of justice. On the contrary, the impugned order is well reasoned based on proper appreciation of the material produced before it, hence needs no interference in it. Thus, point no. On the contrary, the impugned order is well reasoned based on proper appreciation of the material produced before it, hence needs no interference in it. Thus, point no. 1 is answered in the negative and the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Revision application (ULP) No. 115/2013 is hereby dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) R & P of Misc. Application (ULP) No. 32/2010 be sent back to the Third Labour Court, Nagpur." 9. From the above, it is clear that the Petitioner was cross-examined before the First Labour Court wherein his admission has been recorded and one of the most crucial fact that came to be recorded was that the Petitioner has confessed that no written order of appointment was ever given to him. It was also admitted by the Petitioner that his termination was oral and he did not remember any dates in respect of his employment, his joining of service in the establishment of the Respondents and most importantly as to why the Petitioner did not present/pursue during the intervening period. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. 10. In view of the above, both the orders passed by the First Labour Court and the Revision Court, being reasoned orders have been passed correctly and deserve to be upheld. 11. The Petition therefore, stands dismissed and orders dated 14.10.2011 and 21.11.2016 passed by First Labour Court and the Revision Court i.e. the Industrial Court, Nagpur, are upheld. 12. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 13. Shri R.D. Hajare, learned counsel appointed for the Petitioner through legal aid be remitted his fees as per rules.