DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC Vs. DEPOT SECRETARY APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash award, dated 25. 6. 2007 passed in I. D. No. 104 of 2002.

(2.) HAVING heard Sri C. Prakash reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds, namely, (1) the petitioner failed to explain the delay of more than 1 years in filing the present writ petition after publication of award, dated 25. 6. 2007, on 4. 10. 2007, and (2) even on merits, there is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned award of respondent No. 2 - Labour Court.

(3.) AS regards the first ground, the petitioner Corporation, unlike its workmen, is backed by strong legal department, which is expected to closely monitor the stages of the cases, render timely advice and ensure filing of cases with expedition. Therefore, there can be no reason whatsoever for it to cause undue delays in approaching this Court questioning the awards. Of late, it has become a common practice for the petitioner Corporation to question the awards with delays ranging between 1 and 2 years. If a statutory Corporation, such as, the petitioner having necessary wherewithal and logistical support to question the awards within a reasonable time, fails to explain the reasons for the inordinate delays, the challenges made to such awards deserve to be rejected at the threshold by applying the well recognized doctrine of laches. While article 226 of the Constitution of India does not per se stipulate limitation for the high Court to entertain a writ petition, the supreme Court in catena of decisions held that the superior Courts do not extend their discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the litigants who do not show diligence in pursuing their legal remedies and fail to avail those remedies within a reasonable time and that what is reasonable time depends upon facts of each case.