sat 1 wp 596-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 596 OF 2011 Chindaram Shankar Pawar ...Petitioner vs. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mrs.Sarojini Upadhyay for the Petitioner. Mr.D.A. Athawale for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. OCTOBER 5, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard Mrs.Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Athawale, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. None appears for respondent nos.2 and 3 though served. 2 By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent no.1 to refer the matter to the Central Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the post he was working in the year 1980 to 1991. sat 2 wp 596-2011 3 The petitioner claims that he was working as Casual Labour during 1984-1991. In 1992, casual labourers/substitutes were called for screening test on 2nd September, 1992, 3rd September,1992 and 4th September, 1992 at Dadar Railway Institute. 4 According to the respondents, the petitioner did not submit his application for screening test through proper channel and raised dispute for first time in 2004 i.e. after about 12 years without inadequate reasons for the delay and hence, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide its letter dated 23rd March, 2007 rejected the petitioner's application for making reference of the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication. 5 We do not find anything on record which explained the delay in approaching the concerned authority in 2004 after 1995 when the petitioner was admittedly working in the Central Railways, Mumbai. Even after the letter dated 23rd March, 2007 by which the Government of India informed the petitioner that the dispute raised by him was not fit for adjudication for the reasons stated therein, he kept quiet till filing of the writ petition in March 2010. sat 3 wp 596-2011 6 In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the petition deserves to be rejected not only on the ground of delay and latches, but also on merits. 7 The writ petition is rejected. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)