MEHAR CHAND Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 13172/2009 in W. P. (C) No. 12600/2009 exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. W. P. (C) No. 12600/2009 the petitioner was employed as a Beldar on muster roll in the horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi w. e. f. 12. 02. 2006. He was promoted to the post of Mali on 01. 06. 1973. He remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 19. 12. 1987 to 31. 10. 1991. He was served with a charge-sheet by the management of the respondent on 19. 11. 1992 proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalty against him. Later on, the said disciplinary proceedings were substituted from major penalty to minor penalty. It seems that the petitioner continued to work with the respondent as Mali till he was allegedly not allowed to mark presence w. e. f. 05. 01. 1994.

(2.) THE petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination and non payment of salary to him for the months of January and February, 1994 and April, 1994 to July, 1994 and the said dispute was referred by the appropriate Government in the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Labour Court for adjudication. This dispute was raised by the workman after 10 years of alleged termination in July, 2003. The reference was not pursued by the petitioner and for that reason a 'no dispute award' was passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 197/2004 on 29. 04. 2005. This 'no dispute award' was set aside at the behest of the petitioner workman by the Labour court vide its order dated 11. 09. 2006. Opportunity was given to both the parties to prove their respective contentions. The Labour Court, after scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties before it, decided the reference against the petitioner workman vide award dated 24. 08. 2007, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE award against the petitioner workman by the Labour Court was passed on 24. 08. 2007. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after more than two years of passing of the award. Though there is no limitation prescribed for filing of a writ petition but the law is well settled that principles of delay and latches are applicable even to the writ petitions. A litigant is expected to approach the Court promptly in case he seeks to challenge an order of the labour against him. There is no cogent or convincing explanation furnished by the petitioner for delay of more than two years in filing of the present petition. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine as barred by delay and latches.