1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2431 OF 2008 Noor Mohammed Abdur Rehman Mulla ...Petitioner V/s. Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent .......... Dr.M.Shah Alam Khan with Ms.Pooja S.Agarwal for Petitioner. Mr.M.M.Verma with Mr.Rajesh Gehani & Mr.Mahendra Agavekar for Respondent. .......... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JUNE 29, 2009. P.C. : 1. This Petition takes exception to order passed on 22nd October 2007 by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai. It has, however, been filed in this Court on 8th July 2008. No reason whatsoever has been offered in the Petition as to what prevented the Petitioner to file this Petition in earlier point of time. Significantly, the Respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 20th June 2007 had filed Writ 2 Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.521 of 2008. It is not in dispute that both parties were aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority and had filed cross Appeals. The Appeal preferred by the Respondent was decided on 15th October 2007, whereas, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner is disposed of by the impugned order on 22nd October 2007. The Respondent, as aforesaid, filed Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.521 of 2008 arising out of the same proceedings before the First Authority. That Petition has been finally disposed of on 18th March 2008. Admittedly, when the said Petition was heard and disposed of, the Respondent appeared through Counsel but did not point out that he intends to file Writ Petition challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority passed on his appeal. The present Petition has been filed long after the disposal of the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent on 18th March 2008. 2. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner on the ground of laches. The fact that the Petitioner appeared in the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent being Writ Petition No.521 of 2008 is not disclosed in the present Writ Petition nor the decision passed on the said Petition has been appended to the present 3 Petition. The fact that the Petitioner had filed separate appeal, does not entitle the Petitioner to approach this Court after waiting for quite some time and more so after the disposal of the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent. Hence, dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)