LPA No.268/2009 Page No.1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No. 268 of 2009 & C.M. No. 8116/2009 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate. Versus SH. RANBIR SINGH ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 28.05.2009 1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11th February, 2009. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- 2. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) challenged the Award dated 4th July, 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal declining the approval to the appellant under Section 33 sub-clause (2) sub-clause (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The respondents (original respondents in the writ petition) took a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition on ground of delay and latches. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the order declining the approval was passed by the Tribunal as far back as on 4th July, 2000 and the writ petition had been preferred by the appellant in December, 2005, without making any endeavour to explain the delay. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition holding that parties cannot avail of their remedies as and when they so wish. The learned single Judge further observed that the writ petition was preferred by the appellant on 2nd December, LPA No.268/2009 Page No.2 of 2 2005; apparently when the Tribunal had already passed an Award dated 30th September, 2005, in favour of the respondents in other case i.e. I.D. No. 149 of 2001 holding the action on the part of the appellant terminating the services of the respondents as not being legal and justified. In the said Award, the Tribunal observed that the Management did not prefer any appeal, revision or writ petition against the order dated 4th July, 2000, and that was the reason that the writ petition was filed immediately after passing of the Award dated 30th September, 2005. 3. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge. Parties are required to pursue their remedies diligently and within a reasonable period of time. In the present case, the appellant is clearly guilty of unreasonable delay without any explanation for the same. The delay is of five long years without any reasonable or cogent explanation for the same. In the absence of any plausible explanation given by the appellant for the long delay, the learned single Judge rightly declined to exercise his extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge to warrant any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 28, 2009/sb