JUDGMENT : S.C. Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner-State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ujjain has filed this present petition being aggrieve by the order dated 29.03.2009 passed by the labour court on an application preferred under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 2. Facts of the case reveal that services of the respondent workman were put to an end and finally the dispute of workman has been adjudicated by the labour court and an award was passed on 31.07.2013 directing reinstatement of the workman with back-wages. The workman has joined the service and made a prayer for grant of back-wages, however, in spite of there being an award, the workman was not granted back-wages w.e.f. 01.01.2001 to 31.10.2007 and in those circumstances, an application was preferred under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 3. The labour court after considering the details of the claim and the prayer made by the workman for the salary of which he was entitled, has allowed the application under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act and directed the employer to pay the arrears of salary for the period of 01.01.2001 to 31.10.2007. Another aspect of the matter is that the award directing reinstatement of the workman has not been challenged and against the award dated 29.03.2009, the present petition has been filed after a lapse of 6 years. 4. I.A. No. 3796/2015 is an application for condonation of delay. 5. An affidavit has also been filed in light of the order passed by this Court for explaining the delay. This Court has gone through the affidavit filed by the respondent. The day-today delay has not been explained and there is a delay of 7 years and not only this, the main award has not been challenged. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. Virendra Shankar and another, reported in 2013 (1) MPLJ, 662 in paragraph Nos. 31 and 32 has held as under :- "31. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. Virendra Shankar and another, reported in 2013 (1) MPLJ, 662 in paragraph Nos. 31 and 32 has held as under :- "31. Applying the aforesaid principles, when condonation of delay is sought of more than 1100 days and the explanation furnished is also not found to be sufficient and rather reflect lethargy and negligence on the part of the State as also considering the merit of this case which shows that the appellants have taken action against the respondents on their back, we find that this is not the case where indulgence should be granted in favour of the appellant. 32. Even otherwise, even on merit, the appellants are not entitled to have indulgence of this Court, in as much as before Tehsildar, they have tried to take advantage on the back of the respondents. They have not cared to serve them. The authority who passed the order canceling the Patta was admittedly not authorised to do so. Moreover even after, the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed, no action has been taken to seek possession of the suit property by filing a suit for possession or by granting fair opportunity of hearing to the respondents by taking his stand before the authority who proceeded ex-parte." 7. In light of the aforesaid judgment and also keeping in view the fact that main award has not been challenged, this Court does not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the writ petition. 8. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of. Even otherwise on merits also, no case is made out in the writ petition. Accordingly, the admission is declined. Ordered accordingly.