vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3569 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3569 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3569 OF 2008 Navin H. Pandya ... Petitioner V/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd & Ors. ... Respondents Petitioner present in person Mr.Vishal Maheshwar with Mohan Jain for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 28, 2008 JULY 28, 2008 JULY 28, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner by this petition is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in Application (IDA) No.315 of 1990 on 15.2.1992. 2. The petitioner had filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that certain amounts were due and payable to him. The Labour Court upheld the objections raised by the respondent company and held that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The workman has approached this Court after 16 years. He claims to have approached various authorities by writing to them including the learned Chief Justice of this Court. However, the letter produced by him : 2 : indicates that the approach to the learned Chief Justice was made only in 2007, 15 years after the order of the Labour Court. He then submits that he has even approached the police and other authorities against the Company with no fruitful result. According to him, the Labour Court was persuaded to hold that he was not a workman only because the Company had fabricated certain documents in order to create evidence against him. 4. The petitioner has also contended that his services have been illegally terminated by his employer and he has prayed that reasonable compensation should be awarded to him to alleviate the hardships that he had to endure as a result of the Company’s actions. The petitioner cannot challenge the termination of his services directly in this Court. Admittedly he has not approached the appropriate forum for redressal of that grievance. 5. In my opinion, these submissions may have had effect if the workman had approached this Court expeditiously after the order dated 15.2.1992. The writ petition cannot be entertained after 16 years from the date of the order since it suffers from delay and laches. 5. Petition is dismissed.