http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3347 of 2000

PETITIONER: Sub-Divisional Officer Telegraph, Bijnor

RESPONDENT: The Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Kanpur and Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the  writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that an  award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (in short the ’Tribunal’) was being  assailed belatedly and the writ petition was dismissed on the  ground of laches.   

       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not take  note of the factual background and on the erroneous  assumptions that an award of the Tribunal made in 1992 was  being belatedly challenged, the writ petition was dismissed.   He referred to several factual details which we shall deal with  infra.                   There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in  spite of notice.

       The order of the High Court reads as follows:

"The petitioner has challenged award of  1992. The petition is highly belated and is  dismissed on the ground of laches."

       Factual position which is almost undisputed is that some  casual labourers raised a dispute before the Tribunal.  The  appellant took the stand that the concerned labourers who  were casual workers had deliberately remained absent from  duty for more than six months.  Those six persons were  engaged on daily wages basis in the Telecommunication  Department under the SDO, Bijnor.  When they reported back  after their voluntary absence they were not given any benefit  for the past service and it was decided to treat them to have  joined w.e.f. 7.5.1985.  The Tribunal by its award dated  17.3.1992 came to hold that there was, in fact, termination,  and there was no compliance with requirements of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the  action of the Department was illegal and unjustified.   According to the Tribunal they were entitled to reinstatement  with full back wages and consequential benefits.  The  Department filed an Original Application before the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short ’CAT’).  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The Original Application was admitted on 5.5.1993 and stay  on the direction for the payment of back wages was granted.   Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the CAT that in  view of the decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. The  Union of India & Others (JT 1997 (3) SC 589) the proceedings  before the CAT were not maintainable.  By order dated  17.12.1997 CAT disposed of the matter holding that the  proceedings before it were not maintainable.  It was, however,  inter alia observed as follows:

"Nothing in this order shall however, preclude  the applicant from seeking redressal of his  grievances from an appropriate forum."

       The writ application was filed in February, 1998 and has  been dismissed as afore-noted by order dated 30.4.1998.

       A perusal of the factual scenario as noted above clearly  indicates that the writ petition was not belated as was  observed by the High Court. It is unfortunate that the High  Court did not take note of the relevant factors and the  intervening circumstances and by a cryptic order dismissed  the writ application holding that it was highly belated.  Had  the High Court applied its mind to the factual background  facts it could not have come to the conclusions as arrived at. It  is true, if there is abnormal delay in filing a writ petition and  there is no plausible explanation for the same, the Court can  decline to entertain it on the ground of laches. But the fact  situation is entirely different here. In paragraphs 47 to 50 of  the writ petition filed before the High Court, all relevant details  were indicated. Unfortunately, the High Court has not taken  note of that.  

       In the circumstances without expressing any opinion on  merits, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the  matter to it for decision on merits.   

The appeal is allowed.  No costs.