Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay laches estoppel raised no petitioner rebuttal. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Petitioner, Vijay Kumar, had initially filed Original Application No.1729 of 2016 before State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.7399 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs :-
“i) That the break in service in each year from 1996 to 2004 be condoned for the
(ii). purpose of counting the seniority.
That the applicant be granted seniority for the break period with effect from 1996 to 2004.
(iii). That the applicant be granted seniority with all consequential benefits.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Daily Waged Chowkidar w.e.f. 17.03.1996 in Irrigation and Public Health Division, Dehra, District Kangra, (HP) and his services was regularized w.e.f. 23.09.2012 against the post of Chowkidar, under Irrigation and Public Health Division, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. It is further averred that the petitioner had rendered continuous service with 240 days from 2005 to 2011 onwards as per Mandays Chart [Annexure R-II]. It is averred that though the petitioner stands regula
Disputed questions of fact on service breaks for regularization claims cannot be resolved in writ proceedings; must be raised as industrial dispute; delay and acquiescence after 12 years bar relief.
Writ court cannot adjudicate disputed service breaks requiring evidence; claimant must pursue industrial dispute remedy; 15-year delay, laches, acquiescence bar regularization/seniority relief.
Writ courts refrain from adjudicating seriously disputed facts on continuous service days for daily wagers' regularization; relegate to Labour Court. Delay, laches, acquiescence bar relief after long....
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
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....
In absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner workman establishing that he had worked under the Respondent continuously for 240 days and, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has....
Industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act can be raised at any time; delay does not bar adjudication if the dispute remains valid and justiciable.
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
