JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.N.D. Songara for petitioner. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged the exparte order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in Reference (IT) No.27 of 1999 dated 19.2.2003. Against the said order dated 19.2.2003, restoration application being Misc. Application No.1 of 2003 was made by petitioner under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules,1966 (for short "the Rules") for setting aside ex-parte order. 2. The respondent filed reply to the said Misc. Application. The Industrial Tribunal has observed in the order that for the fault of the Union, it members have to suffer. However, with a view to teach the lesson to the Union, rejected the Misc. Application for restoration on 22.9.2003. Thereafter, Review Application No.10 of 2004 was preferred by petitioner which was also dismissed on the ground that principle of res-judicata applied by order dated 8.11.2004. 3. This petition has been filed after a period of 6 years challenging aforesaid order passed by Industrial Tribunal. One order is passed on 22.9.2003 and another order is dated 8.11.2004. There is no explanation given by petitioner in present petition for delay of six years. So in absence of explanation which has not been given by petitioner to challenge the order after a period of six years. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches, which remained unexplained. This Court has in the case of Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. v. Baldevji Mohanji Solanki reported in 2006 (2) CLR 535, has considered aforesaid aspect. Relevant observations of Para.10, 11 and 12 is quoted as under : "10. Two decisions which have been relied upon as referred above by learned Advocate are not applicable to the facts of this case, because in the decision reported in 1996 10 SCC 634 , a general observations have been made by the Apex Court. There is no detail in the decision as to how much delay was ultimately condoned by the Apex Court. However, one observation of the Apex Court in the said decision is relevant which is quoted as under : "it would result in it must have been by skillful management on delay in the process of filing the appeal". In this case, it is really a skillful management efforts deliberately the delay in filing the present petition. However, one observation of the Apex Court in the said decision is relevant which is quoted as under : "it would result in it must have been by skillful management on delay in the process of filing the appeal". In this case, it is really a skillful management efforts deliberately the delay in filing the present petition. In second decision is also not helpful to the petitioner. Para.5 which has been relied on, there is no ratio laid down by Apex Court. It is only a factual averments made by Apex Court. In Par.9, the observation made by the Apex Court which gives the power to the Court to exercise discretionary power "if the delay is within certain limit". This observation is applicable to the facts of this case. Can we say that a delay of more than 4 and 1/2 unexplained be within certain limit ? It cannot be so in light of the factual aspect as discussed by this Court as referred above. In Para.9 except general observation in respect to the law of limitation, there is no specific ratio has been decided by the Apex court. In respect to Para.11, one important observation is relevant to the fact of this case which is quoted as under : "Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics to seek their remedy promptly". "The idea is that every legal remedy must have kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time". Meaning thereby that some reasonable period if satisfactorily explained being a sufficient cause, then, the Court may exercise the discretionary powers judicially to condone the delay. But the facts of this case are totally reverse. 11. The petitioner being a corporate body having number of persons working on legal side. they must have appointed legal officers or some legal assistance for the defence in various cases or to file certain case against the respective parties. It is not a case of poor workman or a villagers who approach the Court with a request that delay can be condoned because he was not able to understand the consequences or he was not having sufficient means to challenge the action within some reasonable time. It is not a case of poor workman or a villagers who approach the Court with a request that delay can be condoned because he was not able to understand the consequences or he was not having sufficient means to challenge the action within some reasonable time. So any handicap upon the party pointed out to the satisfaction of the Court not to file proceedings within reasonable time, then, Court may certainly exercise the discretionary powers, but in this case, Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. the petitioner is having highest officer working in the Corporation upto IAS level and still matter remained pending with the head office for more than 3 years and matter remained pending with the Advocate for a period of 2 years. For that, there is no explanation or any other details have been given by the petitioner nor any affidavit from responsible officer of the head office and Advocate concerned is filed. There is clear positive negligence and carelessness of petitioner. No documents and correspondence of head office and Advocate concerned produced on record. Therefore, according to my opinion, the delay in filing the present petition is not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. There is no justifiable and sufficient cause shown by the petitioner to get the delay condoned. The contention of Mr.Chauhan that Labour Court has passed an award without jurisdiction and award is nullity. Whatever the defect according to petitioner in the award that is required to be examined by the competent Court. Unless and until competent Court examined the award in question, merely having the opinion about the award of the petitioner has no consequence." (See : 2006 SCC (L&S) 791, 2009 (2) Scale 108 and 2009 AIR SCW 1986.) 4. In view of six years' delay which remained unexplained and no sufficient cause is shown by petitioner before this Court and no such averment made in present petition. Therefore, only on the ground that six years delay which remained unexplained, present petition is dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits. Therefore, there is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.