* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 23037/2005 SUNIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.N. Choudhary, Advocate. versus D.T.C. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 05.05.2008 1. The petitioner was working as a driver with Delhi Transport Corporation. On 29th March, 1986, the petitioner while driving a bus struck a pedestrian at a road crossing as a result of which the pedestrian expired. FIR under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner’s services were terminated under Cluase 9 (b) of DRTA Rules on the ground that the petitioner had caused a serious accident. 2. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that on checking the petitioner’s memo it was found that he had taken only 35 to 40 minutes to reach the accident point from the bus terminus at NOIDA, though the scheduled running time from the said terminus till the last point was one hour twenty minutes. Thus, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was over speeding. 3. The petitioner claims that he was acquitted in the criminal case on 23rd November, 1998 and, therefore, he should be reinstated. It is further stated that the termination of the petitioner under Rule 9 (b) of DRTA Rules was without show cause notice etc., therefore, bad for violation of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to work with the respondent corporation and gives up his claim for back wages. 4. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had earlier invoked jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. However, the petitioner did not file any claim and subsequently the reference was returned back unanswered. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had approached Labour Officer but his case was again turned down on the ground that it was a very old case and it would be not be feasible to consider the request regarding his reinstatement in service. The respondent corporation has stated in the counter affidavit that the acquittal of the petitioner was on the ground of lack of evidence and not on merits. 5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition only in October, 2005. The petition is, therefore, bad for laches and undue delay. It is apparent that after acquittal of the petitioner in 1998, he has been working or employed with a third person or was self employed. Keeping in view the time gap and the fact that the petitioner had earlier approached Labour Tribunal, I do not think it will be appropriate for this Court to entertain the present writ petition or pass any order reinstating the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 05, 2008 VKR