JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The petitioner-workman was serving as a Labourer in the Sathra Section under the respondents from 01.11.1996 and it is his case that he was illegally terminated in December, 2000. Thereafter, he raised industrial dispute in the year 2019, which culminated into Reference (LCB) No. 42 of 2019. After placing reliance on various judgments, vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, the reference is rejected on the ground of delay, as the dispute has been raised after a period of 19 years.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi is unable to dispute the fact that the industrial dispute has been raised after a period of 19 years by the petitioner-workman. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Electricity Board v. Rajesh Kumar, 2003 (12) S.C.C. 548.

3. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid decision in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture Department, AIR 2016 SC 2984, on which reliance is placed by the Labour Court. The Apex Court, after survey of various judgments on the issue, has held thus:-

"36. Thus, a dispute or difference arises when demand is made by one side (i.e. workmen) and rejected by the other side (i.e. the employer) and vice versa. Hence an "industrial dispute" cannot be said to exist until and unless the demand is made by the workmen and it has been rejected by the employer. How such demand should be raised and at what stage may also be relevant but we are not concerned with this aspect in the instant case. Therefore, what would happen if no demand is made at all at the time when the cause of action arises? In other words, like in the instant case, what would be the consequence if after the termination of the services of the petitioner on 1-4-1985, the petitioner does not dispute his termination as wrongful and does not make any demand for reinstatement for a number of years? Can it still be said that there is a dispute? Or can it be said that workmen can make such demand after a lapse of several years and on making such demand dispute would come into existence at that time. It can always be pleaded by the employer in such a case that after the termination of the services when the workman did not raise any protest and did not demand his reinstatement, the employer presumed that the workman has accepted his termination and, therefore, he did not raise any dispute about his termination. It can be said that workman, in such a case, acquiesced into the act of the employer in terminating his services and, therefore, accepted his termination. He cannot after a lapse of several years make a demand and then convert it into a "dispute" what had otherwise become a buried issue.

37. Let us examine the matter from another aspect viz. laches and delays and acquiescence.

38. It is now a well-recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity "delay defeats equities".

39. This principle is applied in those cases where discretionary orders of the court are claimed, such as specific performance, permanent or temporary injunction, appointment of Receiver, etc. These principles are also applied in the writ petitions filed under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. In such cases, courts can still refuse relief where the delay on the petitioner's part has prejudiced the respondent even though the petitioner might have come to court within the period prescribed by the Limitat