The principle of laches and inordinate delay in filing a Writ Petition under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can lead to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 19.04.2022, passed in W.P.No.9321 of 2022, on the file of this Court.)

S. Vaidyanathan, J.,

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 19.04.2022, passed in W.P.No.9321 of 2022, confirming the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, rejecting the approval petition filed by the appellant management.

2. Second respondent, who was a driver under the appellant management, was dismissed from service on 03.06.2011, for causing a fatal accident. Following that, the appellant management filed an approval petition before the Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said petition was dismissed by the Authority. Aggrieved over the said order of dismissal, the management preferred the Writ Petition and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge, confirming the order of the Authority. The learned single Judge referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and also this Court while dismissing the Writ Petition.

3. The Supreme Court, in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, 1994 SCC, Supl.(2) 195, has held as follows :

''''8. The petitioner sought to contend that because of laches on his part, no third party rights have intervened and that by granting relief to the petitioner no other person''s rights are going to be affected. He also cited certain decisions to that effect. This plea ignores the fact that the said consideration is only one of the considerations which the court will take into account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from laches. It is not the only consideration. It is a well-settled policy of law that the parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over their rights. That is the whole policy behind the Limitation Act and other rules of limitation. If they choose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an inordinately long time, the court may well choose to decline to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and that is what precisely the Delhi-High Court has none. We cannot say that the High Court was not entitled to say so in its discretion.''''

4. A Division Bench of this Court, in S.Vaidhyanathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2018 SCC OnLine, in para 14, held as under;

“14. There is an inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellant. What is latches is as follows:

“Laches or reasonable time are not defined under any statute or Rules. “Latches” or “Lashes” is an old french word for slackness or negligence or not doing. In general sense, it means neglect to do what in the law should have been done for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time. What could be the latches in one case might not constitute in another. The latches to non-suit, an aggrieved person from challenging the acquisition proceedings should be inferred from the conduct of the land owner or an interested person and that there should be a passive inaction for a reasonable length of time. What is reasonable time has not been explained in any of the enactment. Reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”...... In para 16 of the judgment cited supra, it is held as under;

''''16. Delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation destroys the remedy itself. Delay amounting to laches results in benefit of discretionary power being denied on principles of equity. Loss of limitation resulting into depriving of the remedy, is a principle based on public policy and utility and not equity alone...............”

5. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K.Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Supreme Court, in Paragraph 6, held as follows:

“6. Delay or latches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of t