JUDGMENT

A. K. GANGULY, CJ. — This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.9.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.7800 of 2004. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application on two grounds; the first one was that the writ application was filed on 23.7.2004 chal¬lenging the Award dated 30.11.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar i.e. after a substantial delay and there was no averment in the writ application explaining the delay. The learned Single Judge held that though the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to a writ petition, but it is well settled that the remedy of the writ Court is only available to a litigant who approaches the Court with sufficient prompti¬tude. Stale claims are not to be entertained by a writ Court. It is difficult for this Court to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The other ground taken by the writ Court was that the Pre¬siding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal while passing the Award had taken into consideration all the facts in its proper perspec¬tive and the case by the petitioner-management for non-payment of bonus was rightly rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the order of the learned Single Judge has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Kashinath G. Jalmi and another Vrs. The Speaker and others, AIR 1993 SC 1873 in support of his contention that a writ petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of delay. It appears from the judgment of Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi’s case (supra) that the said judgment was delivered consid¬ering different fact situation and on different legal issues involved in that case. In that case, the question was whether the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly can review the earlier order of the Chief Minister on the ground of defection. If the Speaker has no power of review under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, merely because of the fact that writ petition was filed ten months after the order of review was passed by the Speaker, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. Learned Judges of the Supreme Court while coming to the said conclusion found that in that case the relief which was claimed by the writ petitioner was in the nature of class action, without any person¬al relief. As such, the said writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. The Supreme Court also observed that since the question raised in the writ petition related to matters of ‘public concern’ and ‘good governance of the State’ itself, such a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay specifically when the same was filed ten months after the order of review was passed. In the instant case, those considera¬tions are totally absent.

The present writ petition has not been filed by the peti¬tioner in public interest, but it was filed in its own interest relating to payment of financial benefits to its employees. The writ petition was filed on 23.7.2004 challenging the Award which was passed by the Tribunal on 30.11.2002. Therefore, here the delay was for about twenty months and the same has not been explained at all in the writ petition.

3. The next question is whether the Tribunal was right in passing the Award. It is trite law to say when a competent fact finding Tribunal, upon hearing the parties/reaches its finding, the writ Court while exercising certiorari jurisdiction should be very slow to interfere with the same unless the finding is pat¬ently perverse or is without jurisdiction. In the instant case none of the above grounds is available to the writ petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the Regional Plant Resource Centre (in short ‘R.P.R.C.’) is not an industry and that this point has not been dealt with by the Tribunal despite the fact that such a point was raised. In sup¬port of his contention