DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner who was appointed by the Delhi Development Authority, for the relief of reinstatement and back wages and consequential benefits. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a beldar in HD-III Divn. on regular muster roll on 1. 12. 1993 and he had worked there for 197 days from 1. 12. 1983 to 19. . 7. 1983, His services were terminated because the FIR has been filed against him under Section 411/406/407/408/409/ 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The allegations were that on counting of cement bags, 1500 cement bags were found short. ( 3 ) THIS court issued notice and in pursuance of the notice, reply was filed by the Director Material Management, Delhi Development Authority. In the reply, it is stated that this petition is not maintainable because it does not disclose as to how the case of the petitioner is covered under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 4 ) IT is mentioned that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground, as no order of termination had been passed by the respondent as the petitioner was engaged on purely temporary basis for a specific work. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner w as never appointed as beldar nor any appointment letter w as ever issued to him. He was engaged on muster roll purely on temporary basis for specific work and he was allowed to render his sen ices at cement site, Shakur Basti. SD Divn. III. ( 5 ) THE petitioner submits that he had submitted number of representations but no relief has been granted to him from any quarter. The petitioner also submitted that in the criminal case, he was discharged by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 25. 3. 85. Therefore, he is entitled now to be reinstated with all the consequential benefits. ( 6 ) IN any event, the petitioner s services w ere terminated w ay back in 1983 and he approached this court in 1996. There is no satisfactory explanation of this undue delay and latches of 13 years, in preferring this petition before this court. 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN any event, the petitioner s services w ere terminated w ay back in 1983 and he approached this court in 1996. There is no satisfactory explanation of this undue delay and latches of 13 years, in preferring this petition before this court. 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner had worked w ith the DDA purely on temporary basis for 197 days on a specific project, and after that was over, the petitioner s sen ices were dispensed w ith. The petitioner is not covered under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has no justifiable claim for reinstatation ( 7 ) IN any event, the petitioner s sen ices were terminated w ay back in 1983 and he approached this court in 1996. There is no satisfactory explanation of this undue delay and latches of 13 years, in preferring this petition before this court. ( 8 ) I do not find any merit in this petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed.