Delay and laches affect the right to relief in writ petitions; excessive delay can preclude the court from exercising discretion favorably.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J (Oral) -

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) whereby Labour Court has answered the reference against her.

2. The petitioner claims that she joined respondent No. 2-office of Executive Engineer, Haryana PWD (B&R) on 01.11.1996. She worked till 30.09.2003 and was terminated on 01.10.2003. On her application, the matter was referred to Labour Court which vide Award dated 07.11.2013 dismissed her claim. She preferred CWP-12455-2014 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by way of remand. The Labour Court passed fresh Award on 15.02.2016 which is under challenge.

3. On the asking of Court, Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate submitted that petitioner is an illiterate lady and due to wrong advice, COVID-19 and family circumstances, she could not approach this Court within reasonable period.

4. On the earlier occasion she approached this Court and her petition was allowed. The matter was remanded back to Labour Court. Her husband has filed CWP-14287-2016 before this Court. These facts collectively indicate that petitioner is well aware of legal remedies and cannot claim ignorance.

5. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non- deliberate delay.

In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC 295 , supreme court has considered scope of interference in case of delay and laches. Court has held:

"24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant."

In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110 and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 84 , Supreme Court has ruled that even in cases of violation or infringement of fundamental rights, a writ court may take into account delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court and if there is gross or unexplained delay, the court may refuse to grant relief in favour of such petitioner.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board V. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 , Supreme Court has ruled:

'16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself ali