IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2011 SHRI. AJAY GAJANAN TARI ... Petitioner Versus M/S. POLYNOVA INDUSTRIES LTD., ... Respondent Mr. V. Halarnkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 21st February, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Halarnkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges award dated 28th May, 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference no.IT/82/98 as well as the finding on the preliminary issue nos.1 and 2 dated 5th April, 2001 recorded by the Tribunal. 3. The present petition has been filed on 29th October, 2010. 4. According to the petitioner, the copy of the award sent by the Industrial Tribunal was misplaced and thereafter, in the year 2005, he went to Tribunal to apply for a fresh copy, but he was informed that since there was no Presiding Officer, he could not get certified copy. The petitioner further claims that thereafter, he was occasionally visiting the office of Industrial Tribunal to find out whether he could get certified copy of the impugned order and award, but he could not get the same. Thereafter, in the month of October, 2007, he visited the office of the Tribunal and applied for the copy of the order and award dated 8th October, 2007, which was given to him on 10th December, 2007. The petitioner further claims that thereafter his father expired in February, 2008 and he was under serious financial constraints and unable to file the present petition. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the cause shown by the petitioner is not sufficient to justify gross delay and laches in approaching this Court. The petitioner could have very well obtained the copy of the award which is to be published in the official gazette in terms of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act and it was not necessary for the petitioner to wait for the certified copy of the award. Even if his version that he had misplaced the certified copy of the award, is held to be correct, the grounds stated in the application do not make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than six years in approaching the Court. 6. I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction against the impugned award and order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, Writ Petition stands summarily rejected. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA