IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2011 MR. FAKIRAPPA F. MADAR ... Petitioner Versus THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER P. G ACT, 1972 AND REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. T. Pereira, advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 28th April, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr. Pereira,learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 12/10/2006 passed by the Respondent no.1. 3. The petition has been filed on 26/10/2010 almost after a period of four years. 4. In paragraph 9 the petitioner has stated that initially there was correspondence between respondent nos.2 and 3 and ultimately payment was made to the petitioner in terms of the impugned order only on 3/3/2008. In paragraph 10 the petitioner has stated that the petitioner met with an accident and got caught up in mental tension of withholding of his gratuity from March, 2005 to March 2008. It is further the case of the petitioner that his sickness continued for sometime thereafter making him fed up with the respondents and it was only in 2010 that his family members prevailed upon him to challenge the impugned order. 5. Having considered the reasons given for the delay in filing the petition, I am of the considered opinion that the said reasons given have absolutely no basis for approaching this Court almost after a period of four years. It is well settled that a petition challenging an order passed by the Tribunal has to be filed within a reasonable time and if there is delay the same must be explained by the petitioner. In my opinion, the delay in this case has not been satisfactorily explained. On this count alone, I am not inclined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, the petition is summarily dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-