1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7870 OF 2009 Deepak Vyas .. Petitioner Vs Government of India and others .. Respondents Smt. Seema Chopda / T.R. Yadav for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Pakale i/b Shri. M.S. Bardwaj for respondents CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 29th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 28th October, 2003 passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the claim amount of Rs. 2,24,424.00 [ Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Four RMA wp7870-09.sxw 2 Hundred Twenty Four only ] by demand draft in favour of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai within a period of 30 days of receipt of the order. The petitioner has also challenged a recovery notice dated 23rd June, 2008. 3. It is seen that the impugned order is dated 28th October, 2003 and the notice is dated 23rd June, 2008 whereas the petition is filed on 10th September, 2009. The recovery notice has been issued pursuant to the order dated 28th October, 2003 which order has also been challenged in this petition. It is seen that there is inordinate delay and latches in filing the petition. No reasonable cause has been made out in the petition in respect of delay in filing the petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 28th October, 2003, the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 15th February, 2004 to the Government of India, Office of the Director General (Inspection) and Chief Labour Commissioner (C), New Delhi. As far as the order dated 28th October, 2003 is concerned, the only remedy to the petitioner was to file a writ petition before this court. By sending the letter dated 15th February, 2004, it cannot be said RMA wp7870-09.sxw 3 that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28th October, 2003 before the proper forum. It is seen that even after a letter dated 15th February, 2004 was sent to the petitioner, the petitioner has not bothered to follow up as to what was the action taken on the said letter. Thus, in fact only on the ground of delay, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the complaint was wrongly filed against him alleging that he is the proprietor of M/s. Shri. Rana Enterprises situated at Jayran Nagar, Borivali (W). His case is that he is neither a proprietor nor a partner nor agent of the said enterprises and he has no concern in any manner with M/s. Rana Enterprises. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the matter be remanded back so that the petitioner has an opportunity to bring on record material to show that he is not connected with M/s. Rana Enterprises and some other person is connected with the said enterprises. However, looking to the fact that more that six years have elapsed since the order was passed and looking to the fact that the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the order for a long period of six years, today I RMA wp7870-09.sxw 4 am not inclined to remand the matter or interfere in the order dated 28th October, 2003. 5. The petition is dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp7870-09.sxw