MUKESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's services were terminated in the year 1990. The present petition has thus been presented after a lapse of five years. The reason for this delay has been explained. It is stated that in the case of one Dinesh Kumar some order has been passed by the respondent No. 2. It be seen that the above Dinesh Kumar challenged his removal by preferring a writ petition No. 617/95. That petition came to be decided in favour of Dinesh Kumar, and said Dinesh Kumar has been reinstated in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek parity with Dinesh Kumar. The petitioner did not take any step for a period of five years. As such, he is not entitled to claim any relief. In this regard reference be made to Shri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another Vs. State of Karnataka, 1992(2) SCT 35 (SC) : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 80. In para 3, it was said:-

(2.) The respondents' counsel may take notice of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if some relief can be granted to the petitioner, then the same be considered. The respondents would also be at liberty to take notice the plea of limitation, if any, operating against the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly.