IQBAL SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 20.7.1999 (Annexure P-2) whereby the claim of the petitioner had been declined. A perusal of the award would go on to show that the petitioner claimed that he served the Management since March, 1994 till July, 1996 and allegedly his services were terminated without any notice or compensation. The defence of the management was that the workman had not completed 240 days in any of the calendar year. The workman failed to appear and substantiate his claim and was proceeded ex-parte. In pursuance of that reference was answered in favour of the Management. It is settled principle of law that the workman has to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and the onus is upon the workman. Once the workman had chosen not to appear before the Labour Court, the submission of the counsel that muster roll itself shows that the workman had completed 240 days is without any basis.

(2.) Another factor which goes against the petitioner is that the order dated 20.7.1999 has been challenged after a delay of more than 14 years which was not explained in any manner as to what was the reason for not approaching this Court for a such a long period.

(3.) It is settled principle that law protects the ones who are vigilant and agitate their rights within reasonable period of limitation. The Apex Court in City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, 2009 1 SCC 168 while discussing the issue of delay and laches recognised the principle that while exercising the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary power if there is any negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right within a reasonable period of time and without any justifiable circumstances. The relevant observations read as under:--