JUDGMENT An objection is raised by respondent that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Counsel for the respondents submits that Industrial Court has passed the order on 14.5.1995. This petition is filed on 20.10.1997 after more than two years and five months. He submits that petition is highly belated and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India therefore, principles of delay and laches under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be attracted in the present case. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since this petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, question of delay is not material. He submitted that under Article 227 of Constitution of India, this Court can always exercise its superintendence in respect of any order passed by subordinate Tribunal. Both the parties relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Raj Bahadur Singh & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 685 . This judgment related to petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. In para 2 of judgment, it is held as under : "In our opinion the approach of the High Court is not justified. There is no time-limit for filing the writ petition. All that the Court has to see is whether the laches on the part of petitioner are such as to disentitle him to the relief claimed by him. But the High Court appears to have examined the matter as if it was a case under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Apart from the above, we do not think that the proceedings should be prolonged any further. Even if the Tribunal is right in its opinion, the only result would be now required to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings. Having regard to the nature of the charge and having regard to the fact that the respondent was only a temporary employee, we think that the following order would be an appropriate one in the circumstances of this case. Instead of reinstatement, pursuant to the order of Tribunal, the respondent shall be entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The respondent shall not be entitled to any other claim. Instead of reinstatement, pursuant to the order of Tribunal, the respondent shall be entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The respondent shall not be entitled to any other claim. The said amount shall be paid by way of government cheque to the respondent within three months from today". It is true that there is no time limit for filing such petition. But in the present case, the order of reinstatement of respondents was passed on 14.5.1995. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been held by two Division Bench of this Court that when a conductor is involved in permitting passenger to travel without ticket amounts to gross mis-conduct and the service are liable to be discontinued. However, the Tribunal has found that no departmental enquiry was conducted before terminating the services though the allegation was in respect of permitting passengers to travel without ticket but no evidence was let to prove the misconduct before the Court. However, the services of respondent were terminated in the year 1976 and he filed a petition after a period of eight years, in the month of September, 1984. The petition as filed by respondent itself was belated. In these facts and circumstances, the order passed by industrial Court comes within the jurisdiction of this Court for examination under power of superintendance. It has also been settled by the Division Bench of this Court that delayed petition should not be entertained. The question of law involved in the case is whether, the Labour Court can entertain the petition at any time. Therefore, petition is admitted for final hearing.