Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. (1.) Facts: 1.1 Razzak Khan was an employee working with Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. at all material times. On October 31, 1975 he was charge-sheeted on the alleged theft of Gun Metal Gland kept clandestinely under his raincoat. An inquiry was held where he was found guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed him from service vide order dated December 30, 1975. A reference was made by the State to the Industrial Tribunal at the instance of the appellant to decide the issue whether his termination was justified. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated April 28, 1982 held that the enquiry was fairly held and was valid. The Tribunal published its award on October 12, 1982 affirming the order of dismissal. 1.2 The appellant did not challenge the award of the Tribunal either before this Court or in any appropriate proceeding. After a lapse of eighteen years the appellant filed a writ petition on December 12, 2000 being W.P. No.l9793(W) of 2000. His Lordship allowed the Writ Petition to be withdrawn as it was found defective. Nine months later, he filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 15397 (W) of 2001. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition holding that the same was a belated one. His Lordships judgment and order appearing at page 19-22 depicts that the appellant contended before His Lordship that on the self-same charge the State proceeded against him in a criminal proceeding where he was acquitted. Hence, he was entitled to be reinstated. His Lordship observed that the acquittal was made in 1996 long after his dismissal which remained unchallenged. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition. The appellant again accepted the said decision by not challenging the same before the Division Bench by preferring any appeal. 1.3 The appellant filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 11577(W) of 2002 after crossing the age of superannuation, inter alia, praying for identical relief which was specifically rejected by His Lordship in the earlier writ proceeding. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated July 28, 2006 appearing at pages 131-133 of the paper book dismissed the writ petition. His Lordship observed that the subsequent writ petition was not maintainable. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated July 28, 2006 appearing at pages 131-133 of the paper book dismissed the writ petition. His Lordship observed that the subsequent writ petition was not maintainable. His Lordship also examined the merits of the matter and found that the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was fair and valid. No further evidence was laid by the parties before the Tribunal. No challenge was thrown before the Tribunal as against its earlier finding dated April 28, 1982. The appellant also failed to contend that evidence before the Enquiry Officer was insufficient to prove the charges. Leave was not sought to adduce any further evidence. His Lordship did not find any scope to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. (2.) Appeal: Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the writ petitioner preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned date. (3.) Contention of The Appellant : 3.1 Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant contended before us that in the earlier writ proceeding the appellant asked for his reinstatement on the strength of the Criminal Court decision whereas the present writ petition was filed for quashing of the impugned award dated October 15, 1982. Hence, the earlier decision would not operate as res judicate and the second writ petition was maintainable. 3.2 On merits, Mr. Chatterjee contended that no Presenting Officer or Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was not conducted as per the Service Rules. The Tribunal ought to have interfered with the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority. Learned Counsel also contended that the appellant was an illiterate person. He was not aware of his rights and as such he could not pursue his remedy in time. This Court should consider the matter on merits ignoring the delay, if any caused while approaching this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3.3 Mr. Chatterjee relied on two decisions reported in 2003(1) SCC 184 (S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and Anr.) and 2003(3) CHN 334 [Justice (Retd.) Debi Prasad Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.]. 3.4 Mr. Chatterjee prayed for setting aside of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the award dated October 12, 1982. (4.) Contention Of The Respondents : 4.1 Opposing the appeal, Mr. 3.4 Mr. Chatterjee prayed for setting aside of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the award dated October 12, 1982. (4.) Contention Of The Respondents : 4.1 Opposing the appeal, Mr. Dipak Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Garden Reach Ship Builders contended that the Disciplinary Authority gave ample opportunity to the appellant to represent himself in the proceeding before passing the order of dismissal. The disciplinary proceeding was an independent proceeding and had no connection with the Criminal case referred to above. The Tribunal considered the evidence that came out during enquiry and after considering the records including the enquiry report and the order of dismissal, Tribunal published its award. Mr. Ghosh further contended that inordinate delay was not at all explained by the appellant. Merely ignorance in law could not be a ground to come and approach the Court for redressal of grievance at any point of time at the sweet will of the appellant. Mr. Ghosh further contended that unexplained, inordinate delay did not warrant consideration of the prayer on merits, even then the learned Judge considered the matter on merit and rejected the writ petition which did not deserve any interference from this Court. 4.2 In support of his contention Mr. Ghosh relied on the following decisions: i) Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs. Bank of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 2249. ii) Scooters India and Ors. vs. Vijai E.V. Eldred, reported in 1998(6) SCC 549 . iii) Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs. Jyotish Chandra Biswas reported in 2000(6) SCC 562 . iv) Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd, and Anr. vs. K. Thangappan and Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 1581. 4.3 Mr. Ghosh prayed for dismissal of the appeal. (5.) Our View : 5.1 The Apex Court decisions cited by Mr. Ghosh consistently held that unexplained delay bars interference of the Court as it makes the writ petition not maintainable. If we analyse the facts discussed above, we would find that the appellant was not diligent. Even if he was waiting for a decision from the Criminal Court he could have approached the learned Single Judge after disposal of the criminal matter. He did not do so. It might be true that the prayers made in the first writ petition are not similar to the prayers made in the second one. Even if he was waiting for a decision from the Criminal Court he could have approached the learned Single Judge after disposal of the criminal matter. He did not do so. It might be true that the prayers made in the first writ petition are not similar to the prayers made in the second one. However, the decision of the learned Single Judge on the first writ petition that the grievance was made belatedly, was binding upon the appellant as he did not challenge such decision contemporaneously. 5.2 If we ignore the decision in the first Writ Petition we would find that an award of 1982 was challenged in 2002. After twenty years such belated challenge could not be entertained by the Court of law. The learned Judge took immense pain to go into the merits of the matter and ultimately found that the writ petition was meritless. The grounds on which the challenge was thrown to the award as we find, were merely afterthought and were not taken either before the Tribunal or so soon thereafter before any appropriate forum. 5.3 In the decision in the case of Justice (Retd.) Debi Prasad Sarkar (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court held "non-entertainment of writ petition on the ground of delay was not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion." His Lordship further observed, "the real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to Court before a parallel right is created and lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence." We are of the view that this decision squarely supports the judgment and order impugned in this appeal and does not, in any way help the appellant. 5.4 In the case of S.K. Mastan (supra) the Apex Court considered the issue of delay and laches in a matter where family pension was denied to the writ petitioner. The Apex Court observed that the petitioner was an illiterate widow with meagre resources and, as such, her claim was maintainable despite delay. The facts of this case do not permit us to follow the said precedent. Here, the incumbent was dismissed from service in 1975. The Tribunal ultimately upheld his dismissal in 1982. He did not challenge the same contemporaneously. The facts of this case do not permit us to follow the said precedent. Here, the incumbent was dismissed from service in 1975. The Tribunal ultimately upheld his dismissal in 1982. He did not challenge the same contemporaneously. Such fact cannot be equated with the claim of an illiterate widow claiming family pension on account of her husbands death. 5.5 We are constrained to hold that the writ petition was meritless and His Lordship was right in rejecting the same. (6.) Result : 6.1 The appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. 6.2 There would be no order as to costs. (7.) Direction : Urgent xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. Appeal dismissed.