(1.) Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(2.) The respondents have filed the reply wherein preliminary objections have been taken with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated. It has further been averred that petitioner is estopped to file and maintain the present writ petition on account of his own acts and deeds, conduct and acquiescence. It is claimed that cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner on 29.11.2004 when the Labour Court passed the impugned award and there is no reason why the petitioner slept for nearly seven years and filed this petition only on 16.9.2011. It is further claimed that in compliance to order dated 29.11.2004, the petitioner has been given the benefit of seniority from the date of reference i.e. 27.4.2001 and after granting the same, he has been offered temporary post of Beldar on regular basis vide order dated 6.5.2010 and therefore, the order having been implemented and accepted by the petitioner, he cannot turn around and challenge the same at this stage.
(3.) Undisputedly, the petitioner at the first instance had approached the Labour Court after more than 13 years and yet was fortunate to have been awarded the relief of reengagement from the date of reference. Going by the recent trend of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the reference was bound to have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches, whereby the petitioner was seeking to enforce a stale claim. This would be clear from the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another v. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Another, 2014 AIR(SC) 1848 :