Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sayed Mushtaq Ali vs G.M.,Raj. State Road Trans. Corpn. ... on 19 January, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6443 / 2014
Sayed Mushtaq Ali S/o Sh. Shaukat Ali, Aged about 55 years, r/o
inside Delhi Gate, Nayapura, Udaipur, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. G.M. (Mukhya Prabandhak, RSRTC, Depot, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.
2. The Managing Director, RSRTC, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur, Dist.
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitnya Gehlot.
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 19/01/2017 The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following relevant.
The fact as noticed by this Court that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in respondent-Department by order dated 29.9.1982 for a period of 30 days. On violation of service conditions of probation, the services of the petitioner were discontinued by order dated 27.12.1983.
The petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.7.1984. The petitioner filed a fresh application and accordingly on 20.7.1984, the petitioner was again appointed on the post of conductor for a period of two years. However, on 7.2.1985, the respondents passed an order that the (2 of 2) [CW-6443/2014] petitioner services were not satisfactory and, therefore, vide order dated 7.2.1985 his services were again terminated.
The petitioner again preferred an appeal and simultaneously challenged the termination order dated 7.2.1985 before the court of Additional Muncif Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. However, petitioner withdrew the same and raised a dispute before the Labour Welfare and Conciliation Officer, Udaipur in the month of December, 1996, challenging his termination order dated 7.2.1985. On failure, the reference was made to the learned Labour Court in Labour Case No. 212/90, whereby the learned Court held that the termination of the petitioner was proper and legal vide judgment and award dated 22.12.2004.
The writ petition has been filed against the award dated 22.12.2004, on 16.9.2004 after a gross delay of about 10 years. This Court is of the opinion that challenging the order dated 22.2.2004 on 16.9.2004 cannot be adjudicated as though the writ jurisdiction does not have any bar of limitation but the same has to be exercised within a period of reasonable time. The petitioner has not explained as to what reasons prevented him from exercising the writ jurisdiction for about 10 years. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed only on account of gross delay.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Manish-73