VISHAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned Award dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court-I, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Industrial Adjudicator') in ID Case No. 8/2011 answering the reference against him.

(2.) On an advance copy having been served, Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advocate appears for the respondent/management.

(3.) There is absolutely no plausible explanation offered by the petitioner for the exorbitant and abnormal delay of more than five years in approaching this court. Though no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but there is no rule of universal application for condonation of delay. Though, there may be no period for limitation prescribed for filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India yet the person aggrieved should approach the court without loss of time and if there is a delay, the petitioner must offer cogent explanation. The line of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue would be indicative that the courts have evolved self imposed restraints in inquiring into belated or stale claims. One who is tardy, not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of arising of the cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right, is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has not offered any just explanation in his writ petition. Same is held to be barred by time and latches and abnormal delay.