V. RAJESHAM Vs. CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2 for the reason that we have come to the conclusion that the writ petition should not have been dismissed in limini on the ground of delay only without adverting to the merit of the case of the appellant. We do not think it necessary to record a formal order of admission and delay in disposal of the appeal for mere formalities. The learned Single Judge had exercised judicial discretion and refused to entertain application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It is however a rule of prudence and not a rule of law and accordingly when shall it be prudent to refuse to entertain a writ petition and when it shall be prudent to entertain it are left to i.e discretion of the court Some rules to guide the exercise of jurisdiction by the court in such a situation are found in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Nandlala Jaiswal, AIR 1987 SC 251 Narayan Devi Khaitan Vs. State of Bihar, 1964 SC (Notes) 259 and P.S. Roy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 908. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Jagannath Mishra Vs. State, AIR 1990 Patna 11 has noticed these rules and laid down that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when High court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. However the rule that delay may defeat the rights of a party is relaxed and need not be applied if the case is positively good.

(2.) People in the lawyer income group have a serious handicap that they cannot easily afford the luxury of litigation and although courts have recognised that right to receive legal aid is enshrined in the right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India it has not yet received its full gloom. Litigation is still a boon for the rich and a bane for the poor. The appellant herein is a workman who has gone through the process of adjudication of the labour dispute of a nature that required a closer scrutiny by the court. We do not however, propose to say any thing on merits of the controversy and leave it open for the parties to contest in the writ petition. We are inclined on the facts of the instant case to interfere with the in-limini dismissal of the writ petition and direct for the admission of the writ petition for hearing and disposal of the same in accordance with law.

(3.) The appeal is accordingly allowed The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is directed to be admitted for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.