JUDGMENT & ORDER : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The award passed on 3.12.2010 is challenged. First of all the writ petition was filed in 2011. The same was not perused by the petitioner for last six years. On the previous occasion when the case came up, this Court asked the counsel to verify whether the award has been complied with or not to which he has informed today that the award has not been complied with but he states that the concerned workman never approached the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed reply to the claim and pointed out that the workman was are an employee of respondent No. 2 and the said society was autonomous society and they had no concern at all in the case or dispute raised by the concerned workman. It is submitted that the award has been given erroneously passed an against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel's further submission is that even the respondent No. 2 admitted that they were autonomous society and agreed with the submission raised by the petitioner. 3. First of all keeping in view that the award was passed in 2010. The challenge made and submissions have been raised after seven years the writ petition therefore deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches. Secondly, I find that the Labour Court has noted the submissions set up by the petitioner in the reply but it was further noted that neither any affidavits were filed nor any document was filed in support of the reply to the claim by the petitioner No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, Chairman of the respondent No. 2 filed affidavit were stating that although the society was an autonomous society but its affairs and payment of wages is under direct control of the petitioner Bank and the action of removal or appointment of any person in the society was as per directions issued by the petitioner. The statement stands un-controverted due to lack of filing any evidence on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Labour Court has given its findings as against the petitioner which can not be said to be perverse or illegal. The award therefore does no call for interference. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.