G SATTAIAH Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very stale matter has been brought before the Court by way of this writ petition after a lapse of more than six (6) long years. Let me first state the facts pleaded by the petitioner in brief as under:

(2.) In my considered opinion, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini on the ground of laches itself. Even accepting the whole case of the petitioner as correct, I do not find any explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition why the petitioner kept aloof without seeking legal remedies either before the Industrial Court or before this Court by way of judicial review for a long period of more than six years. The affidavit averments are as vague as they could be. Specifics are wanting. Though die petitioner has stated that he went to the respondent No.2 and made enquiries about the matter, the petitioner quite curiously has not given the dates on which he met the respondents or the dates on which he made representations to the other respondents. The petitioner has also not produced the copies of the so-called appointment order given to him in the year 1991. Even assuming that the petitioner made certain representations to the respondent Nos.2 to 4, after his alleged disengagement in the month of September, 1991, that fact itself cannot be a mitigating circumstance to overlook the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. It is needless to state that the representations made to the respondent Nos.2 to 4, in the nature of things, are extra-legal in nature. The Supreme Court, in Rabindra v. Union of India, 1972 (2) SCR 697, State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan, AIR 1976 SC 2617 and large number of other cases to follow, opined that making repeated representations would not exonerate delay in moving the Court. Further the Supreme Court in Naib Subedar v. Union of India, 1977 UJSC 353, opined that pursuing an ill-conceived remedy is not a proper explanation for the delay. The repeated representations made before the respondents 2 to 4, even accepting to be true, cannot be a valid circumstance to condone the inordinate delay of roughly seven (7) years. There is also no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Service of a daily wager for a specific term can be terminated by the employer in terms of the conditions incorporated in the appointment order, and such action of the employer does not violate any law.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches as well as on merit. No costs.