-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2008 Chhagan Daga Pachore ... Petitioner versus Executive Engineer, Irrigation Dept. and others ...Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Patil for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 07, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Nasik dated 20th August, 2007 by which the Labour Court has rejected Reference (IDA) No. 20 of 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that he was in the employment of the respondents since 1st June, 1985. However, without any reason or enquiry, his services were terminated with effect from 1st August, 1992. He requested the authority to take him back but since he was not taken back, the aforesaid industrial dispute was raised. It is the case of the petitioner that in every calendar year he used to serve for more than 240 days and, therefore, without following the due process of law, his services could not have been terminated. The Labour Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the -2- employee had not made any efforts to ask the employer to produce the documentary evidence in support of his case. After considering the evidence, the Labour Court found that the say of the workman that he had served for more than 240 days in a particular year is not proved. The Labour Court also found that the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 1st August, 1992 and a demand was made by sending a notice on 16th July, 2002, i.e. after ten years of the so-called termination order. The Labour Court has found that no explanation whatsoever had been given by the workman about such inordinate delay. The said aspect has been considered by the labour Court in paragraph 9 of the award. 2. In my view, the petitioner, who has woken up from the deep slumber after ten years for which no explanation was given by him, has raised the dispute without even showing as to why such an inordinate delay was there. The Labour Court, in my view, has not committed any error of law or of jurisdiction in rejecting the reference on the ground of delay and laches. In my extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not like to interfere with the order of the Labour Court as it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any such error which requires to be corrected by this Court. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition. Petition is dismissed summarily. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.