-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2008 Eknath Vasant Halde ... Petitioner versus The University of Mumbai and another ...Respondents Mr. Sachin Chavan for the petitioner. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: AUGUST 06, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 23rd October, 2002, by which the Tribunal has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No. 83 of 2001 challenging notice dated 2nd May, 1998 terminating his services. According to the petitioner, he was in service of the University of Mumbai and he was working as a hamal. It is his case that he was appointed as Hamal on 24th April, 1997 and within short time his services were terminated by order dated 2nd May, 1998. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 16th October, 2001. Along with the appeal, he -2- submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay was sought to be explained on the ground that he was prosecuting his remedy before the Labour Court. The Tribunal, however, found that the delay between 8th June, 1998 and 16th September, 1998 remains unexplained and on that ground the Tribunal found that there is no justifiable reason to condone the delay. The Tribunal accordingly rejected the said application. 3. It is required to be noted that the order of the Tribunal is passed as back as on 23rd October, 2002 and thereafter this petition is filed in the year 2008. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for such an inordinate delay of six years in approaching this Court. The petition, therefore, suffers from delay and laches as the petitioner has approached this Court after more than six years after the impugned order is passed. Considering the said fact, this petition is not required to be entertained in view of gross delay in approaching this Court after the order of the Tribunal. The reason given in the petition for such delay is also not satisfactory. The petition is accordingly rejected. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.