Delay and laches bar the petitioner's claim for reinstatement after a 21-year delay.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansau, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby his reference has been rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Roadways as a Conductor. He proceeded on 90 days medical leave with effect from 14.10.1996. He did not rejoin his duty and respondents terminated him vide order dated 08.12.1998. The petitioner after the expiry of 21 years approached Labour Court assailing his termination. The Labour Court has dismissed his reference on the ground of delay and laches. The relevant extracts of the findings recorded by Labour Court are reproduced below:-

"16). Appraisal of the evidence adduced on the file proves that the workman was appointed as Conductor with the respondents Punjab Roadways, Jagraon. However, he absented from the duty without getting any sanctioned leave w.e.f. 14.10.1996. Thereafter, charge sheet Ex.R2 was served upon the workman, but he failed to turn up to contest the enquiry proceedings. Charge sheet was also conveyed to the workman through publication Ex.R4, but when he failed to turn up despite issuance of letter and publication, regular domestic enquiry was initiated against him. Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Mita Singh, Inspector and Bachan Singh, Inspector during the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the enquiry officer gave his report Ex.R4, wherein he found the workman guilty of absence from duty without intimation or sanctioning of any leave application. The said report was again sent to the workman at his residential address vide letter Ex.RIO, but the same was received back unserved. Thereafter, show cause notice was sent to the workman by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jagraon, but to no avail. The said show cause notice was also got published by the respondents in newspaper Ex.R12, but when the workman did not turn up despite sending of show cause notice, order of termination was passed on 8.12.1998 by the respondent No. 3. The said termination order was sent to the workman through registered cover vide Ex.RI 3, but the same was again received back with the same report that he was not residing in the village. Testimony of RW-1 Inderjit Singh reveals that numerous letters were sent to the workman to appear before the enquiry officer and disciplinary officer on the address mentioned in the demand notice and the statement of claim. Surprisingly, all the said notices were received back unserved that the workman was not residing in the village on the said address, which goes to prove that the said notices were not deliberately received by the workman for the reasons best known to him. This fact is also corroborated from the

3. admission made by WW-1 in his cross examination that he has been residing at the same address mentioned in the affidavit till today. Thus, interference arises that the workman deliberately failed to file the reply to the charge sheet and to contest the enquiry proceedings or to file any reply to the show cause notice. A R for the workman also failed to point out any discrepancy in the exparte enquiry proceedings during the course of arguments.

17) Apart from this, it is also pointed out that the impugned termination order was passed on 8.12.1998. Demand notice was filed on 1.09 2019, about 21 years after passing of the order of termination. Surprisingly, no cogent and convincing explanation has come, either in the demand notice or in the statement of claim, as to why, it took period of about 21 years by the workman to challenge the termination order. The long and undue delay in challenging the termination order goes to show that no dispute existed between the parties a