This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award on the ground of significant delay and laches. The court relied on precedent to hold that approaching the writ court after eight years without explanation bars the proceeding.
Writ petition dismissed on grounds of delay and 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.
VINOD KUMAR 2015.03.24 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.22431 of 2011
[ 1 ]
********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.22431 of 2011 Date of decision:20.03.2015
Sh. Mangat Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate, for respondent no.2. *****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Amritsar dated 31.03.2003 by way of this writ petition filed on 01.12.2011.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the Court has found that the petitioner has worked continuously for a period of more than 2 years and has been removed from service without issuance of notice and payment of notice pay, yet the reference has been answered against him on the ground that he was appointed without following the due procedure. It is submitted that once the petitioner has been found to have been worked continuously for a period of more than 2 years, respondent no.2 was bound to follow the procedure provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial
VINOD KUMAR 2015.03.24 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh [ 2 ]
CWP No.22431 of 2011
Disputes Act, 1947.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that the present petition is not only devoid of any merit but also highly belated and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kamruddeen v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Gurgaon, 2014 LabLR 1173.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is highly belated and is, thus, suffers from delay and laches as the award of the Labour Court has been challenged after a period of 8 years without giving any explanation for the delay. In Kamruddeen's case (supra), the following observations have been made by this Court:-
“8. 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
VINOD KUMAR 2015.03.24 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.22431 of 2011
[ 3 ]
years.”
In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
March 20, 2015 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Labour Court award is maintainable given the delay of eight years in filing without justification.
Whether the filing date of 01.12.2011 is considered too delayed given the award date of 31.03.2003.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamruddeen v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, GurgaonRelied on¶21
Kamruddeen v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Gurgaon, 2014 LabLR 1173
Kamruddeen v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, GurgaonRelied on¶22
Kamruddeen's case (supra)
Mangat Rai
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar
another
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
