CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman was employed as a Security Guard during the construction of the building in the petitioner's school. It is alleged that the workman services was terminated on 1.10.1995 and, being aggrieved by this order of termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, after considering the entire material, gave an award directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with 50% back wages. The Labour Court held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and was also employed in a permanent capacity and that the employers had violated the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, filed a writ petition in the year 2007 through its Society. Subsequently, a preliminary objection was taken that the Society was not a party before the Labour Court and that only the School was a party and that the school had not filed the writ petition. On this basis, the writ petition was dismissed by a judgment dated 10.5.2012 leaving it open to the school to challenge the veracity of the award. The school has now filed the present writ petition.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the workman, namely, that the award was passed on 9.1.2007 whereas the writ petition was filed on 12.9.2012 and consequently, there was a delay of more than 5 years and that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, on the preliminary objection, the Court is of the opinion, that the delay in filing the writ petition has been suitably explained. The award was filed by the Society, which is managing the school, and upon the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the Society, with liberty to file afresh, the present writ petition was filed by the School. In the opinion of the Court, there is no delay in filing the writ petition. The delay has been explained sufficiently by the petitioner. The preliminary objection is overruled.