JUDGMENT : Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. The belated challenge after 6 years in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) raised by the worker, whose reference has been dismissed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon by holding that he was covered by the exception clause of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and, therefore, no reinstatement could be ordered. The case of the workman is that he had worked from 3.2.1993 as a Mali upto 1.6.1998 with the Divisional Forest Officer, Aravali Project and the demand notice was sent on 4.6.1998. 2. The plea taken in the written statement was that he was employed for a specific project, which was closed on 31.10.1999 and he had not completed 240 days. 3. The workman examined only himself whereas the management examined Vijal Pal Singh as MW-1 who brought the documents Exs. M-1 and M-2. 4. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no letter of appointment nor any order of termination. The workman was a daily wager and as per the deposition of the management witness Vijay Pal Singh, the case fell within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and, therefore, the termination of such person would not attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Resultantly, the reference was declined. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that record was called for vide application dated 24.05.2001 and, therefore, an adverse inference should have been drawn on account of non-production of the same. 6. The said argument is without any basis. The Labour Court has dismissed the claim on the ground that the workman had been appointed for a specific project which was funded by European Economic Community and was closed. Therefore, he being a daily wager appointed under the said project and in view of the exception which was provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would not be attracted. In such circumstances, drawing of any adverse inference for non-production of the alleged record would not arise. Therefore, he being a daily wager appointed under the said project and in view of the exception which was provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would not be attracted. In such circumstances, drawing of any adverse inference for non-production of the alleged record would not arise. The Labour Court has taken into consideration that even it is accepted that the workman had completed 240 days with the respondent, then being casual worker on daily wage basis, he would be covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and no fault can be found in the said reasoning. 7. Another aspect which is to be seen is that the present writ petition is admittedly hit by the principle of delay and laches. After a period of almost 6 years from the passing of the Award, the present writ petition has been preferred. There is no fixed period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing a writ petition but it is settled that the writ Court should be approached at the earliest against any Award and preferably within a maximum period of 3 years. The said period expired way back in the year 2011 and not a whisper has been made in the pleadings to justify the long delay of almost 6 years. 8. In such circumstances, this Court does not feel that it should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction since the petitioner has chosen to sleep over its rights. It is settled principle that law is for the ones who are vigilant over their rights and not for those who sleep over them. Accordingly, keeping in view the above reasoning, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.