Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J Initially, the 1st respondent was appointed as a Conductor on daily wage basis on 30.12.1983 and, subsequently, he was appointed on regular basis, with effect from 01.03.1984. On 12.02.1985, while he was conducting a bus between Jangaon to Ghanpur and on its return journey, it was checked at stage No.6. It was found that as many as 12 passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.7, alighted at stage No.6 without tickets. A charge memo was issued and departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that the charges framed against the 1st respondent were proved. Based on that, the appellant passed an order, dated 29.12.1985, removing the 1st respondent from service. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, 2nd respondent herein, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it was taken as I.D.No.201 of 1988. Through its award, dated 24.04.1990, the Labour Court took the view that though there is some negligence in collecting fare from passengers, the punishment of removal of the 1st respondent from service is too harsh and disproportionate. Accordingly, the order of removal was set aside and the appellant herein was directed to appoint the 1st respondent as a Cleaner, afresh. The appellant filed W.P.No.15178 of 1991 before this Court, challenging the award in I.D.No.201 of 1988 and it was dismissed in the year 1993. Nine years thereafter, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.16213 of 2002, challenging the award and claiming the relief of reinstatement into service, with continuity of service and back wages. The appellant opposed the same. Through order, dated 20.09.2013, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing that the appointment of the 1st respondent, with effect from 04.10.1991, shall be treated as Conductor and not as Cleaner. In all other respects, the award was sustained. This Writ Appeal is filed, assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel for APSRTC, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained for more reasons than one. He contends that once the award in I.D.No.201 of 1988 assumed finality, with the dismissal of W.P.No.15178 of 1991, the question of the 1st respondent filing an independent writ petition, much less interference with the award, does not arise. He contends that once the award in I.D.No.201 of 1988 assumed finality, with the dismissal of W.P.No.15178 of 1991, the question of the 1st respondent filing an independent writ petition, much less interference with the award, does not arise. He further submits that assuming that the dismissal of W.P.No.15178 of 1991 does not affect the right of the 1st respondent to assail the award, the present writ petition was filed 12 years from the date of the award and it is hopelessly barred by laches. Other grounds are also urged. Sri P. Pankaj Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the dismissal of W.P.No.15178 of 1991 does not affect the right of the 1st respondent to work out his remedies. He further pleads that the delay in filing the present writ petition was, on account of the fact that the 1st respondent was subjected to mental agony and financial hardship and, at any rate, these grounds were not raised in the writ petition. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 1st respondent ended up, with the passing of order of removal from service. An industrial dispute was raised by the 1st respondent. The Labour Court took the view that the 1st respondent cannot be entrusted with the financial matters of the Corporation, indicating thereby that he was indulged in financial irregularities. However, it directed his appointment as Cleaner, as a fresh candidate. A clear mention was made in the award, to the effect that the relief is granted, only on humanitarian grounds. In case the 1st respondent was not satisfied with the relief granted by the Labour Court, he ought to have assailed the award, by filing a writ petition, soon after the award was passed. He did not do so and, on the other hand, he has accepted the appointment, in terms of the award, without any demur. With that, the matter assumed finality, from the point of view of the 1st respondent. Even while implementing the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant has chosen to assail the award, by filing W.P.No.15178 of 1991. The same was dismissed in the year 1993, obviously, after notice to the 1st respondent. With that, the matter assumed finality, from the point of view of the 1st respondent. Even while implementing the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant has chosen to assail the award, by filing W.P.No.15178 of 1991. The same was dismissed in the year 1993, obviously, after notice to the 1st respondent. In case the 1st respondent was of the view that he was entitled to a larger relief, he ought to have become alert at that stage and filed an independent writ petition, seeking the relief, since the facility of filing cross-objections is not available in the writ petitions. He kept quiet for a period of nine years, after W.P.No.15178 of 1991 was dismissed, and filed the present writ petition. It may be true that no serious effort was made by the appellant to urge the ground referable to the principle of res judicata or laches before the learned Single Judge. All the same, being the questions and principles of law, they can be taken into account by this Court. It is not uncommon that an employee on the one hand and employer on the other hand file writ petitions against the award in an industrial dispute, to the extent they feel aggrieved. In such cases, both the writ petitions are to be heard together. If for any reason, trial is not done, the result in the one must entail in the other. The reason underlying the principle of res judicata gets attracted. In the instant case, it applies with greater vigor, since the 1st respondent filed the writ petition long after the one filed by the appellant was dismissed. Time and again, the writ Courts have taken the view that the relief, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be granted, if the petitioner has approached the Court with delay or he is guilty of laches. In several cases, even the delay of two years in approaching the Court, was treated as constituting the laches. In the present case, the 1st respondent approached the Court, 12 years after the award was passed. We do not find any merits in the writ petition and we disagree with the approach of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. As a result, W.P.No.16213 of 2002 shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. We do not find any merits in the writ petition and we disagree with the approach of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. As a result, W.P.No.16213 of 2002 shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeal shall stand disposed of.