H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Hardik Raval for the petitioner corporation. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner corporation has challenged the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in reference (IT) No. 82 of 1998 dated 16. 12. 1999 wherein the tribunal has set aside the punishment imposed by corporation against respondent conductor dated 27. 4. 1994 with a direction to the Corporation to pay difference of salary with arrears to the respondent. ( 2 ) IT is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Raval on behalf of the petitioner that the workman has committed serious misconduct in not issuing tickets after collecting fare from the passengers. According to him, past record of workman is bad wherein he has committed 18 misconducts. He also submits that the dispute was belatedly raised by the workman, after about four years. According to him, legality, validity and propriety of the departmental inquiry was not challenged by respondent workman before the industrial tribunal. Industrial Tribunal has considered that the passengers as well as the driver was not examined by the inquiry officer, therefore, findings given by the inquiry officer are baseless and perverse. As regards delay in filing of the petition for challenging the award of 1999, he submits that the award dated 16. 12. 1999 was published in March, 2000. Thereafter, Corporation engaged advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Patel for challenging said award and petition was affirmed on 9th August, 2001, however, due to lethargic approach of the ST Officer working at Godhra in not supplying certified copy of award, in view of these things, petition could not be filed immediately and it is filed after a period of about six years he submits that the respondent workman retired from service on 30. 4. 2005, thereafter, he filed special civil application no. 21446 of 2005 for implementation of the award in question wherein this court directed workman to make representation if, so far, award in question is not challenged by the corporation. Thereafter, respondent workman filed contempt petition wherein learned advocate Mr. Raval appeared for corporation and deposited amount in the registry of this Court on 26. 8. 2006, of rs. 1,58,256. 21446 of 2005 for implementation of the award in question wherein this court directed workman to make representation if, so far, award in question is not challenged by the corporation. Thereafter, respondent workman filed contempt petition wherein learned advocate Mr. Raval appeared for corporation and deposited amount in the registry of this Court on 26. 8. 2006, of rs. 1,58,256. He submits that doing road book is a serious misconduct and same has been admitted by the workman and, therefore, some punishment may be imposed which will, ultimately reduce the quantum of arrears. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by Mr. Raval before this Court. No decision was cited by the learned Advocate Mr. Raval before this Court in support of his submissions. ( 3 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Raval before this Court. I have also perused the award in question and the reasons assigned by the petitioner in the memo of petition for delay in filing of this petition in 2006 for challenging award dated 16. 12. 1999, published in March, 2000. Considering the averments made in para 3 of the memo of petition, Thereafter, corporation engaged mr. Sudhanshu Patel as an advocate to file petition before this Court for challenging award dated 16. 12. 99 which was prepared by the advocate and it was affirmed by the legal officer on 9. 8. 2001 but some how the concerned officer of Godhra Division has not supplied certified copy of the award and, therefore, petition could not be filed. In the mean time, respondent retired on 30. 4. 2005. These are the only reasons assigned by the corporation for justifying the delay in filing of this petition. Except this, no other averment has been made in the petition to explain the delay. There is no provision under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india to file petition within such prescribed limit but it has to be filed within reasonable period and if there is any delay in filing of the petition, then, such delay has to be explained by the person invoking such extra ordinary jurisdiction, of course, to the satisfaction of the Court. Here, no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for satisfying this court as to why award of 1999 published in March, 2000 has not been challenged by the corporation for a period of about six years. Mere averment that the corporation handed over papers to learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Patel for filing petition, who prepared it and also get it affirmed by Legal Officer on 9. 8. 2001 but petition could not be filed for want of certified copy as it has not been supplied by Godhra division is not satisfying this court to entertain the petition after such delay only on the ground that even if the certified copy of the impugned award has not been received from Godhra Division, advocate concerned must be having simple/kacha copy, of the award in question otherwise preparation of petition does not arise. Registry of this court is accepting the petition even with objection which can be removed subsequently by the advocate concerned by supplying certified copy of the award. This procedure is known to the Advocates that the petition can be filed in the Registry of this Court even with objection/s and the objection/s could subsequently be removed and, therefore, the ground for condonation of delay pressed by the petitioner is not satisfying this Court as it is the delay on the part of the Advocate who has, after preparing petition and getting it affirmed, not filed. The time consumed in challenging the award in question is not reasonable but unreasonable. The explanation is not appearing to be genuine and not rational and not satisfying the conscience of the Court. Number of petitions are being filed before this court without supply of legible/typed copies of the documents annexed to the petition, wherein objections are subsequently being removed by getting time either from the Registry of this Court or from the Court. Why such efforts have not been made by the Advocate who has prepared the petition and get it affirmed on 9th August, 2001? For that, no explanation has been given by the petitioner save and except the averments made against the officers of Godhra Division that as he has not supplied certified copy of award, petition could not be filed in 2001 though it was affirmed. For that, no explanation has been given by the petitioner save and except the averments made against the officers of Godhra Division that as he has not supplied certified copy of award, petition could not be filed in 2001 though it was affirmed. Therefore, according to my opinion, it is clearly a lapse on the part of the Corporation and also the legal department in not taking proper care while handing over papers to the Advocate concerned as to whether necessary documents have been supplied or not and whether the petition has been prepared or not and whether it has been affirmed and filed in the registry or not and what is the status of petition after it is affirmed or filed in the Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval submits that there is correspondence on the original file which will prove that sufficient care has been taken by the legal department but some one in Godhra Division has not been responding to the Legal Department as well as the Advocate who prepared petition and then get it affirmed. However, nothing has been brought on record of this petition. Apart from that fact, see the difficulty, harassment and mental agony of workman who has succeeded in reference in the year 1999 has, till the date of his retirement, not been able to enjoy the fruits of the said award. After passing of award in december, 1999, workman retired from service on 30. 4. 2005. Thereafter, he moved this court by filing Special Civil Application for implementation of award and this court directed him to make representation wherein also he get no response to such representation made pursuant to the orders of this Court. Ultimately, he was constrained to file contempt petition which ultimately created effect on the petitioner and petitioner corporation therefore deposited the amount, meaning thereby, petitioner corporation would not have deposited the amount and would also not have filed this petition if the respondent workman would have remained silent about his rights flowing from the award in question. For about six years, corporation remained silent and not challenged award. Award was passed by the industrial tribunal. Non compliance of such award amounts to offence under section 29 of the ID Act, 1947. For about six years, corporation remained silent and not challenged award. Award was passed by the industrial tribunal. Non compliance of such award amounts to offence under section 29 of the ID Act, 1947. It is a clear case of negligence on the part of Advocate concerned, concerned officer of the Legal department of the Corporation as well as the concerned officer of Godhra Division in not taking proper follow up actions. As a matter of fact, for such delay, officers of the corporation are liable for prosecution under section 34 of the I D Act, 1947. In such circumstances, petition filed in 2006 for challenging award dated 16. 12. 1999, after a period of about six years without showing any reasonable and genuine cause should not have to be entertained by this Court, it would amount to encouraging and recognizing such belated action by the Court. In number of cases, this court as well as the Hon ble apex court has taken view that a petition filed belatedly without justifying the unreasonable delay should not have to be entertained by this court while exercising extra ordinary powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. [see : (1)KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION ltd. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN and managing DIRECTOR and ANR. V/s. K. THANGAPPAN and ANR. , 2006 (4) SCALE pg. 56= 2006 (2) LLJ PG. 421; (2) GUJARAT water RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT corporation LTD. V/s. BALDEVJI mohanji SOLANKI, 2006 II CLR 535]. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of the aforesaid decisions, according to my opinion, there being compulsion on the part of the petitioner, petitioner has now filed this petition for challenging award of 1999, otherwise, it would have yet not filed petition and therefore, according to my opinion, this petition is not required to be entertained and same is required to be rejected on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter. Writ of Certiorari is discretionary relief. Unless and until petition is satisfying the court that there is no any unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioner in invoking such an extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction this court cannot entertain such petition. For invoking extra ordinary and purely discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226/227, one has to show extra ordinary care and caution. Petitioner Corporation has not filed any affidavit of the Advocate Mr. For invoking extra ordinary and purely discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226/227, one has to show extra ordinary care and caution. Petitioner Corporation has not filed any affidavit of the Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu patel as to why he has not filed petition after it was affirmed by the concerned officer of petitioner corporation, why waited for certified copy of the award in question knowing fully well that with objection, matter can be filed in the Registry of this Court. No independent affidavit of the legal adviser of the ST Corporation has been filed. No correspondence between the Advocate and legal Adviser as well as with the officer from godhra Division has been produced on record for justifying the delay of six years. No affidavit from the officer concerned working at Godhra Division has been filed by the petitioner before this court. Therefore, presumption is that the petitioner corporation wants to save somebody or hide real facts or cause of delay from this court. Therefore, on this ground alone, petition is required to be dismissed. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, since the submissions were also made by the learned Advocate Mr. Raval on merits of the matter, I am examining the same. It is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Raval that the order of punishment was passed by the corporation on 27. 4. 1994 whereas the workman raised industrial dispute which was referred to for adjudication on 20. 3. 1998 and, therefore, there is delay of about four years on the part of the workman in raising of an industrial dispute and, therefore, tribunal ought not to have entertained reference in view of the delay on the part of workman. Considering this contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Raval, contents of the reply filed by corporation before the industrial tribunal referred to in paragraph 3 of the award have been considered. No such contention was raised by the corporation before the tribunal that the reference was barred by delay of about four years and, therefore, it should not be entertained. This contention is also required to be examined from another angle. Another aspect is that against the order of punishment imposed by the competent authority, departmental appeals are available. No such contention was raised by the corporation before the tribunal that the reference was barred by delay of about four years and, therefore, it should not be entertained. This contention is also required to be examined from another angle. Another aspect is that against the order of punishment imposed by the competent authority, departmental appeals are available. If the workman has first exhausted those departmental remedies and thereafter, has raised industrial dispute, then, availing of such departmental remedies cannot be considered as delay on the part of the workman in raising of an industrial dispute. It is not the case of the petitioner that the workman has not availed any such departmental remedies and has straight way raised industrial dispute against the order of punishment dated 27. 4. 1994 and that too after a period of about four years as submitted by Mr. Raval. Therefore, contention raised by Mr. Raval about delay on the part of workman in raising of an industrial dispute has no substance and same is required to be rejected. ( 5 ) AS regards contention of Mr. Raval that road booking amounts to serious misconduct, as admitted by the workman, and, therefore, some punishment must be imposed, industrial tribunal has considered that on 8. 3. 1993, when the workman was on route from Nandisara to Godhra. His bus was checked by the checking staff and according to the respondent, bus was over loaded and it was late, therefore, it compelled him to do the road booking and during this road booking, bus was checked by the checking squad. However, this explanation/defence submitted by the workman was totally ignored by the competent authority while passing the order of punishment. Question of statement of passengers and driver has also been considered by the tribunal only on the ground that there must be some evidence before the inquiry officer to establish that whatsoever defence was pointed out by the workman is false, fabricated and after thought, therefore, defence of workman should not be believed. However, in departmental inquiry, no such evidence was led by the corporation to establish that the defence of workman was wrong or after thought. This aspect has been considered by the tribunal while coming to the conclusion that somebody must have to be examined who can deny the same. However, in departmental inquiry, no such evidence was led by the corporation to establish that the defence of workman was wrong or after thought. This aspect has been considered by the tribunal while coming to the conclusion that somebody must have to be examined who can deny the same. Apart from that in transaction, one group of eight passengers does not become different passenger different groups. Therefore, it would require one transaction to collect fare and to issue ticket of eight passengers, meaning thereby, defence of workman is possible and probable that one from eight passengers must have tendered fare to workman and while he was issuing tickets, bus was checked. That does not mean that he has misappropriated the amount because he was in process to issue ticket. Further, his traffic cash was not checked by the checking staff. As regards way bill of the workman, no note has been made by the checking staff whether his way bill was opened or closed. It also makes it clear that if the way bill was closed, then, some bad intention on the part of the conductor can be inferred but no details have been placed on record by the checking staff or by the inquiry officer or by the competent authority as to whether, at the time of checking, way bill was open or closed. So, the observations made by the industrial tribunal in light of the fact that no independent inquiry was conducted to find out the truth. Mere allegations made by the checking staff that he recovered fare and not issued ticket has been believed for passing the order of punishment which amounts to doing injustice to the workman when he was not at fault at all while doing road booking or issuing tickets or was in the process of issuing tickets when his bus was checked. Therefore, even on merits also, contentions raised by Mr. Raval before this Court cannot be accepted considering the reasons given by the industrial tribunal after examining the evidence on record. Tribunal has rightly dealt with the matter comprehensively in respect of the dispute and for that, tribunal has got jurisdiction to set aside such order. Therefore, even on merits also, contentions raised by Mr. Raval before this Court cannot be accepted considering the reasons given by the industrial tribunal after examining the evidence on record. Tribunal has rightly dealt with the matter comprehensively in respect of the dispute and for that, tribunal has got jurisdiction to set aside such order. According to my opinion, tribunal has not committed any error in passing the award in question and, therefore, same would not warrant any interference of this court in exercise of powers under Art. 227 of the constitution of India. Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of its findings. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval has not been able to point out that the tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error or that the tribunal has committed material irregularity. He was also not able to point out any infirmity in the award in question. Therefore, considering the decisions of the apex court in (1) LAXMIKANT REVCHAND bhojwani AND ANOTHER V/s. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI, reported IN (1995) 6 SCC 576 ; (2)OUSEPH MATHAI AND OTHERS VERSUS m. ABDUL KHADIR, REPORTED IN (2002)1 SCC 319 (3) WARYAM SINGH V/s. AMARNATH ( 1954 SCR 565 ); (4) ROSHAN deen VERSUS PREETI LAL, REPORTED in (2002) 1 SCC 100 . ( 6 ) THEREFORE, there is no substance in this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India and same is, therefore, required to be dismissed. In result, this petition is dismissed.