Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the third respondent Labour Court, dated 24.4.1996, made in I.D.No.89 of 1995. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had raised an industrial dispute, before the third respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.89 of 1995, praying that he should be reinstated in service, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. He had stated that by a letter, dated 30.10.1969, he was called for an interview by the first respondent, for being selected and appointed as a Secretary, in any one of the societies, coming under the control of the first respondent Bank. By the proceedings, dated 11.5.1970, the petitioner had been selected and appointed, as a Secretary, in K 766 Kanurpudur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. The petitioner had joined in the said Bank and he had continued in service, till 19.3.1971. 3. While so, he was transferred to Periya Kurumbapalayam Agricultural Cooperative Bank and he had been relieved from K 766 Kanurpudur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, on 26.3.1971. However, the petitioner had not been allowed to join in service at Periya Kurumbapalayam Agricultural Cooperative Bank. In such circumstances, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute, before the third respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.89 of 1995. 4. The third respondent Labour Court had dismissed the industrial dispute, in I.D.No.89 of 1995, on the ground that the petitioner had not taken any steps to join in the service of the concerned respondent Bank and that he had sent a notice through his counsel only in the year, 1990 and had raised a dispute in the year, 1994. The third respondent Labour Court had held that the claim of the petitioner was belated in nature and that there was no jural relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent Bank. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s service had been terminated, without a show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner, even though he had been appointed on a permanent basis and after he had put in more than 240 days of service in a calendar year. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award of the third respondent Labour Court, dated 24.4.1996, made in I.D.No.89 of 1995. 6. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award of the third respondent Labour Court, dated 24.4.1996, made in I.D.No.89 of 1995. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent Bank, denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in his affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner had been recruited by the first respondent Bank, in the year, 1970 and he had been allotted to the K 766 Kanurpudur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. Thereafter, in the month of March, 1971, he was re-allotted to the Periya Kurumbapalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. Even though the petitioner could not join in the said Bank he had not contacted the first respondent bank, immediately thereafter, for getting a fresh allotment. 7. After nearly ten years thereafter, he had raised an industrial dispute, before the third respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.89 of 1995. The third respondent Labour Court had dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, by an award, dated 24.4.1996, holding that there was no jural relationship of employer-employee between the first respondent and the petitioner. The third respondent Labour Court had also held that the petitioner had not been appointed in service in the first respondent Bank and that it was only a recruiting agency for the second respondent. Further, since the petitioner had stayed away from work, on his own accord, without approaching the second respondent Bank, he cannot claim any right after a lapse of nearly ten years. Further, the claim of the petitioner was held to be belated in nature. Even though the award of the third respondent Labour Court had been passed in the year, 1996, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, nearly ten years thereafter, in the year, 2006. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The third respondent Labour Court had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner that he was employed by the first respondent Bank. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that he had been terminated from service by the first respondent Bank. 9. The claim of the petitioner that he was not allowed to join in duty, in Periya Kurumbapalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, had not been established. Based on the evidence available the third respondent Labour Court had held that there was no jural relationship of employer-employee between the first respondent Bank and the petitioner. Further, it had been held that the petitioner had approached the third respondent Labour Court, belatedly, after a lapse of nearly ten years from the time when the cause of action had arisen. In fact, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, after nearly ten years, after the award had been passed by the third respondent Labour Court, on 24.4.1996. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs.