The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 2002 Industrial Disputes Authority award filed in 2011. The Court held the nine-year delay, attributed to reasons within the applicant's control, rendered the petition hopelessly time-barred.
Writ petition rejected on grounds of fatal delay/unreasonable laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
926 wp.7942.11
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
WRIT PETITION NO. 7942 OF 2011
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PARANDA THR. CHIEF OFFICER
VERSUS
PRABHAKAR EKNATH CHAITNYA
Advocate for Petitioner : Ghute Santosh T.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 05th July, 2012.
P.C.
. This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 13th December, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Ist Labour Court, Solapur in Reference (I.D.A) No.49 1998. Though the said award is passed in the year 2002, the Petitioner has challenged the said award in the year 2011. It is true that, while considering the delay / laches, the Court should take liberal view in the matter, and that to in writ petition and accept the explanation offered by the Petitioner if found satisfactory. However, in the present case, the writ petition is filed after nine years from the date of passing of the award by
2
926 wp.7942.11
the Presiding Officer, Ist Laboaur Court, Solapur in Reference (I.D.A) No.49 of 1998. The said award is dated 13th December, 2002. The writ petition is filed on 6th April, 2011. The learned counsel invited my attention to paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the writ petition and submitted that, the delay in filing the writ petition has occurred in the circumstances, which are stated in paragraph Nos.8 and 9.
2 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and upon perusal of paragraph Nos.8 and 9 in the writ petition, this Court is not satisfied with the cause disclosed in paragraph Nos.8 and 9. In normal course, while entertaining the writ petition, this Court may not give very serious attention to delay in filing the writ petition, however, in the facts of this case, there is nine years delay in filing this writ petition. Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the wit petition reads thus:
“8. The petitioner submits that, prior to passing of order dated 1.9.2005, the petitioner decided to file writ petition in this Hon’ble Court, challenging the award dated 13.12.2002. The file of the respondent alongwith other identical 3 matters is handed over to the advocate for filing of writ petition. The two writ petitions are filed and one writ petition is not filed by advocate as
3
926 wp.7942.11
per telephonic instructions of the petitioner. The file of present respondent was not readable, therefore, it is inform by the advocate through letter sent by R.P.A.D. dated 31.10.2005 that bring all documents readable and came for affidavit but nobody is approached to file the writ petition against the award dated 13.12.2002.
3 Bare perusal of paragraph Nos.8 and 9 reproduced hereinabove, would make it abundantly clear that, all the circumstances stated therein were within the control of the Petitioner. The Respondent, who is fighting the cause for survival of his family for considerable period, and having award in his favour in
4
926 wp.7942.11
the year 2002, cannot be asked to wait for any further, in a petition which is hopelessly time barred. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands rejected.
[ S.S. SHINDE, J ]
ndm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed nine years after the date of the impugned award suffers from fatal delay and is time-barred.
Whether the explanations provided for the delay satisfy the requirement of liberal view in writ proceedings.
M. C. Paranda
Prabhakar Eknath Chaitnya
S. S. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
