JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The award dated 23rd March, 1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswer in Industrial Dispute Case No. 71 of 1992 is assailed in this writ application. The petitioner was appointed, as a Peon in the Central Co-operative Bank. Limited on 5th June, 1969 and used to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. While matter stood thus on 27.7.1997 charges were framed against him and he was called upon to explain. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and without following the due procedures he was found guilty of misappropriation of the Bank funds and was discharged from service with effect from 14th March, 1978. He raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation having failed, the State Government in exercise of power conferred upon it under subsection (5) of Section 12 read with clause (d) of sub-section (I) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference read as follows: Whether the discharge from service of Sri Suryamani Das, Ex-Peon of the Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Limited, with effect from 14.3.1978 by the management is legal and/or justified? If not to what relief is Sri Dash entitled? 2. After receiving notice, the Management appeared and filed its written statement admitting the fact that the petitioner was duly appointed in the Bank he had continued in service for nine years. The allegation that without proper enquiry he was discharged from service was stoutly denied. It was urged that the performance of the workman was not satisfactory for which a disciplinary action was initiated against him and a charge-sheet was issued on the ground of misappropriation of fund and unauthorized absence. It was further averred that after conducting proper enquiry and giving sufficient opportunity to the workman, he was discharged from service finally with effect from 14th March, 1978. It was asserted that the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly following the principles of natural justice and equity. It was emphatically stated that the dispute was raised by the workman after lapse of eleven years and as such the same was barred by limitation and the industrial dispute case should be dismissed in limine. 3. On the basis of the averments, the Labour Court framed two issues. The workman as well as the Management adduced evidence to substantiate their respective stands. 3. On the basis of the averments, the Labour Court framed two issues. The workman as well as the Management adduced evidence to substantiate their respective stands. The Labour Court after scrutinizing the evidence adduced arrived at the conclusion that the workman had totally failed to adduce satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching the appropriate authority. It was further held that the dispute was raised after lapse of eleven years and five months and as the delay had not been properly explained, the workman was not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly, the reference was held to be not maintainable and was disposed of. The said order as stated earlier is assailed in this writ application. 4. I have heard Mr. Samantray, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, at length. I have also perused the materials available on record meticulously. According to the petitioner, the domestic enquiry was not conducted properly and the Labour Court ham acted illegally and with material irregularity in not adjudicating the dispute on merit and rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. According to his after the punishment was imposed on a domestic enquiry the workman had filed an appeal before the President but as the latter adopted dilly dally tactics in disposing of the appeal, he was constrained to approach the Labour Court. Thus, there was no delay and the finding arrived at by the Labour Court is not just, proper or in consonance with law. 5. No doubt there is no limitation provided under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise an industrial dispute but can it be said that it can be raised after any length of time and that too without any explanation? The Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India and others, has observed that inordinate' delay and unexplained delay or laches by itself is a ground to refuse relief to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit qf the claim. If a person entitled to relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. This is more so in service matters where vacancies are required to be filled promptly. If a person entitled to relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. This is more so in service matters where vacancies are required to be filled promptly. In the case of Bahoant Singh v. Labour Court, Bhatinda and Ors., the Supreme Court relying upon the decision reported in Shalimar Works Limited Vs. Their Workmen, has observed that it is open to the Labour Court to decline the relief in a case where the workman has been negligent and has offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching the appropriate authority. 6. Law is well settled that a writ of certiorari can, be issued only to correct the jurisdiction committed by the inferior Courts or Tribunal and/or when this Court comes to a finding that the inferior Court or the Tribunal has acted illegally and improperly. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is only supervisory in nature and not as an Appellate Court, 7. Admittedly, the reference was made after lapse of eleven years and five months from the date of discharge of the petitioner from service. The Labour Court has considered all the materials in proper perspective. The petitioner has failed to explain the delay and the Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference on the ground of inordinate delay. In the present case the dispute having been referred eleven years after it arose and such dispute being with regard to discharge of an employee of a Bank the reasonings given by the Labour Court cannot be held to be unjustified or unreasonable. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law after going through the award passed this Court feels that the Labour Court has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record. 8. In the aforesaid scenario, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned award and dismiss the writ application. Parties shall bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed