1 wp-5058-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 5058 OF 2009 Shri.Pramod Madan Parab ..Petitioner Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. and Ors. ..Respondents .... Shri.Pramod M.Parab petitioner in person. Shri.M.V.Joglekar Adv. for Respondents .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the Petitioner who appears in person and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No.324 of 2004. The case of the Petitioner is that he should get the benefits which were given to other workers in Respondent No.1 as per settlement dated 28.4.2004. Hence, this petition. 3. By the order dated 28.11.2005, the complaint came to be dismissed. It 2 wp-5058-09 may be stated here that the complaint was filed by (1) Mr.A.M.Belapurkar, (2) Mr.B.M.Khote, (3) Mr.S.G.Pandit and (4) Mr.Shankar Telange and the present Petitioner was not a party to the said complaint. Yet he has challenged the said order dated 28.11.2005. 4. Firstly, the Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Industrial Court, Thane. Secondly the impugned order was passed on 28.11.2005 and this petition has been filed on 9.6.2009. There is a delay of about three and half years in filing the petition. On this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed and hence, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. Thirdly, I have perused the undertaking which has been annexed by the Petitioner to the petition. The Petitioner admits that the said undertaking has been given by him to the Management and it is signed by him. In the said undertaking, it is stated that "I appreciate the gesture shown by the company and accept the amount of Rs.13,500/- arising out of above terms being paid to me. I declare that I have no any other dispute or claim from M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. arising out of Xth Long Term Agreement signed between Management and Union on 28th April, 2004 ”. 5. The Petitioner has submitted that the very same order dated 28.11.2005 was challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos. 4480 of 2006, 974 of 2009, 976 of 2009 and 997 of 2009 and this Court has 3 wp-5058-09 granted Rule in the said petitions. It is seen that these petitions have been filed by the complainants in Complaint (ULP) No. 324 of 2004. As stated earlier, the Petitioner was not party to the said proceedings. In view of this fact and the other facts stated above specially undertaking which is given by the petitioner annexed to the petition, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to follow any other remedy if any, which is available to him in law. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]