21-year unexplained delay in challenging daily wager's oral termination, without pursuing Industrial Disputes Act remedy, constitutes laches and acquiescence, rendering dispute stale and disentitling writ relief despite alleged retrenchment violations.

Petitioner, Bihari Lal, a disengaged daily wager, initially filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6609 of 2011 which was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.674 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs :-

“(i). That the action of the respondents, who has orally terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of Motermate may kindly be set aside and quashed and the respondents may be directed to re-engage the petitioner from the day when his junior persons were engaged (02.11.1989) against such post with all consequential benefits flow therefrom.
(ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”

FACTUAL MATRIX :

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has passed his matriculation in the year 1985 and passed ITI in the trade of Carpenter in the year 1987. It is averred that the petitioner was appointed as Motormate on daily wage basis in Sub Division, HPPWD, Banjar in July 1987 and he worked till March, 1990. It is further averred that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days in each calendar year but, with the variation that in the Month of April 1989 his services were orally terminated and he was assured by the respondent that he will be back in the service as and when the work is available.
2(i). It is averred that after obtaining information under Right to Information Act vide Annexure P-1, the petitioner came to know that junior persons were retained and fresh persons were engaged [w.e.f November 1989] without considering the petitioner and some of them have been regularized between the years from 1998 to 2002 [as per Annexure B to Annexure P-3]. The names of six juniors namely Gian Chand, Jagar Nath, Yog Raj, Khabe Ram, Devinder Kumar and Davinder Singh have been narrated in the petition. Violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H has also been asserted in the writ petition. It is further averred that there is no limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act to assail illegal retrenchment as in this case.
In this backdrop, a prayer is made that the oral termination may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to re-engage the petitioner from the date the juniors were engaged on 02.11.1989, in same capacity with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 19.08.2011, the State Authorities have filed the Reply- Affidavit dated 27.09.2011 of Superintending Engineer, 6th Circle HPPWD, Kullu.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was engaged in October 1987, on daily wages as Motormate and he continued in service till February, 1989 when he left the job on his own.
Reply-Affidavit denies that the petitioner has completed 240 days in 1987 and 1989.
3(ii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the petitioner left the job of his own on February 1989 and he slept over his rights and remedies for the last 21 years till the filing of the instant petition on 15.07.2011. Reply-Affidavit further states that other persons who were engaged in 1989 and continued to work were regularized as per the Government Policy, but since the petitioner chose not to seek appropriate remedy against alleged abandonment, coupled with the fact that he did not complete 240 days in the year preceding his abandonment the claim for re-engagement and regularization was not tenable.
3(iii). So far as juniors are concerned, the Reply-Affidavit indicates that they were engaged in 1989 and 1991 and had completed continuous service with 240 days and upon completion of requisite service they were regularized as per the Policy of the State Government in