Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.R. Shankar Singh vs #The Presiding Officer Of The ... on 17 August, 2012
Bench: G. Rohini, C. Praveen Kumar
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.969 OF 2012
17.08.2012
K.R. Shankar Singh
#The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court,
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District And Three others.
<GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
!Counsel for Petitioners : Mr. Sadu Rajeshwar Reddy
^Counsel for Respondent No.1 : G.P. for Labour
Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Standing Counsel
For APSRTC.
? Cases referred
1. 2012 (3) SCC 311
2. (2010) 14 SCC 389
3. (2011) 5 SCC 607
4. (2011) 10 SCC 608
JUDGMENT:
(Per CPK, J) 1 The Writ Appeal is directed against an order dated 05.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.12902 of 2002 wherein the Hon'ble single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches.
2 The facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:
The appellant was initially appointed on 11.04.1980 as driver and was attached to Nizamabad depot of APSRTC. Subsequently he was transferred to Adilabad depot. On 21.09.1987, he was booked for duty for 20.30 hours for operating Hyderabad - Adilabad service. It appears that the appellant left the bus at Jubilee Bus Station picket and went away without informing the service conductor or to the point controller. On the basis of the report of the controller, Jubilee bus station, Hyderabad and also on the basis of report of station manager, Central Bus Station, Hyderabad, the Depot Manager, Adilabad by his order dated 12.10.1987 placed the appellant under suspension as his act constitute serious misconduct in terms of item (ix) under Note (2) of Regulation No. 9(1) of the APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulation, 1967. A charge sheet dated 12.10.1987 was issued against the appellant, alleging that "he was under the influence of an intoxicant while performing 20-30 hours, Hyderabad -Adilabad with AAZ - 8461 on 21.09.1987 and that he left the vehicle at Jubilee Bus Station picket and went away without informing to the service conductor or to the point controller. The appellant was subjected to disciplinary enquiry wherein he gave an explanation that he fell sick, got himself admitted in Shalini Nursing Home at Marredpally and was inpatient for three days. The enquiry officer by his order dated 17.06.1988 inflicted punishment of removal from service. Thereupon, the appellant raised an industrial dispute vide I.D.No.232 of 1990 under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. (A.P. Amendment) Act, 1987. The Labour Court by its order dated 23.09.1992 set aside the order of removal imposed by the disciplinary authority and directed the management to reinstate the appellant as Helper n any garage or workshop under the control of Management within 15 days from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of award, as if he is a fresh candidate and he is neither entitled to any back wages, continuity of in service nor any attendant benefits. The Management is given liberty to promote him to the cadre of driver if it is satisfied with his behaviour.
3 It may be noted here that the appellant joined as Helper in the year 1993 at Adilabad depot i.e. after the order of the Labour Court and was later promoted as Grade II Mechanic.
4 Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the Appellant herein filed W.P.No.12902 of 2002 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that there are no justifiable reasons behind the extraordinary delay in instituting the Writ Petition. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed.
5 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the material on record.
6 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground of laches. According to him, the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Writ Petition. The reason mentioned by the appellant in the affidavit is extracted hereunder, which is as follows:
"I respectfully submit that I could not approach this Hon'ble Court within the stipulated time prescribed by the writ rules because I was handicapped. It means the copy of the original award which was passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D.No.232/1990, dt.23.9.1992 which was published in G.O.Rt.No.48, dated 11.1.1993 and the same was misplaced while I was shifting my house in the year 1994-95 and I was not having even the Xerox copies of the same, but I got the same that too Xerox copy in the month of May 2002 and now I am approaching this Hon'ble Court because I was put to heavy financial loss in my career and also at the time of edge of my retirement from service. This the delay was caused to approach this Hon'ble Court to challenge the award in I.D.No.232/1990, dated 23.9.1992, which was published n 11.1.1993 in G.O.Rt.No.48."
7 The learned counsel for the respondent contends that no justifiable reasons are given explaining the delay in filing the Writ Petition and the order passed by the learned single Judge needs no interference. 8 The award was passed by the Labour Court on 23.09.1992 and the Writ Petition was filed on 24.06.2002 i.e. nearly 10 years after passing of the award by the Labour Court. According to the appellant, the reason for the delay in filing the Writ Petition was that the original award was misplaced while shifting the house in the year 1994-95 and he could secure Xerox copy of the award only in May 2002.
9 The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and another1 while dealing with a case, where the appellant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, filed writ appeal against the order of learned single Judge dated 15.02.2002 with a delay of one year and 178 days. The reason given for filing the appeal with a delay was that appellant's mother was suffering from illness. As no documentary evidence is produced to that effect, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on the ground of delay and laches holding that a party who slept over his rights is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High Court. In Union of India And Others Vs. A. Durairaj2 the Supreme Court while observing that where a claim is raised beyond a decade or two from the date of cause of action, the employer will be at a great disadvantage to effectively contest or counter the claim, as the officers who dealt with the matter and / or the records relating to the matter may no longer be available, held that even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. While dealing with the aspect of delay and laches, the Supreme Court in Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. M. Prabhakar & Others3 held that the relevant considerations in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approached the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:
(1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts.
(2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners.
(3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy.
(4) No hard-and-fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts.
(5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay.
Similarly in a matter relating to land acquisition, the Supreme Court in Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Another Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and Others4 held as follows:
"Although the Framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power conferred upon the High Court to issue to any person or authority including any Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari is not hedged with any condition or constraint, in the last 61 years the superior courts have evolved several rules of self-imposed restraint including the one that the High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of laches. The principle underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Another reason for the High Court's refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallised and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. We may hasten to add that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own facts."
10 It is therefore clear that though no specific period of limitation has been provided under law, for institution of writ petition, they must be instituted within a reasonable time. Further, one, who is not vigilant in seeking the intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or violation of constitutional, legal or other right, is not entitled to seek the indulgence of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. While invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a delay, sufficient cause has to be shown and also give reasons explaining the delay in filing the Writ Petition. 11 In the case on hand, the award was passed in the year 1992. According to the writ petitioner, he misplaced the original copy of the award while shifting the house in the years 1994-95. The period mentioned in shifting the house is as vague as anything. Firstly, it is not specifically mentioned as to when the writ petitioner shifted the house, secondly no reasons are given as to why he did not choose to challenge the award from 1992 to 1994 i.e. from the year of passing of the award by the Labour Court till shifting of the house. Further, no reasonable explanation is forthcoming as to why he kept quiet from 1994 till he filed the writ petition in the year 2002 after obtaining a Xerox copy of the award. The explanation sought to be given is baseless and without any reason. This is a classic case where the writ petitioner slept over his rights and seeks the indulgence of the High Court after ten years from the date of accrual of cause of action.
12 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and the same warrants no interference.
13 In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
--------------------
G. ROHINI, J.
-----------------------------------
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
Date:17-08-2012.