Financial hardship can justify delays in legal proceedings, and parties must be allowed to present evidence in support of their claims.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Moin, J.

Heard the petitioner, who appears in person, Shri. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri. Rakesh Bajpai as well as Shri. Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsels for the respondent no. 4.

2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.

3. Under challenge is the award dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in I.D. No. 83/2012 in re: Suresh Chandra Yadav v. The Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udaan Academy, Raebareli.

4. By the said award, learned Tribunal has recorded that as the workman/petitioner herein has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim statement neither any witness has been produced by him in court, as such there is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the management in its written statement and as such, has not granted any relief to the petitioner.

5. Contention of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Grade A under the respondent no.4/Academy when he raised an industrial dispute pertaining to his non-promotion on the post of Assistant Grade B and Assistant Grade C although time bound promotion policy was applicable in the Academy.

6. The said reference was registered as I.D. No. 83/2012. The Academy put in appearance before learned Tribunal and filed its written statement to which a rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner herein reiterating the pleas taken in the claim.

7. Certain preliminary objections were also raised by workman/petitioner herein pertaining to the competence of the authority who has filed the affidavits on behalf of the Academy before learned Tribunal.

8. A specific averment has been made in para 26 to the petition that during pendency of the aforesaid matter before learned Tribunal, the petitioner was removed by the Academy vide order dated 27.05.2014. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CAT") which set aside the removal order and the petitioner has been reinstated in service in March 2023.

9. The contention is that as the petitioner was out of service since May 2014 till his reinstatement in March 2023, consequently on account of lack of financial resources he was unable to do proper pairvi of his case before the learned Tribunal or appear before the learned Tribunal with the result that he could not file affidavit nor could adduce any evidence or produce any witness in respect of his claim which has thus resulted in the learned Tribunal passing the award dated 15.12.2016 whereby his claim did not find favour with learned Tribunal and no relief has been granted to him.

10. The contention is that his non-appearance before learned Tribunal was on account of his financial condition which did not allow the petitioner to appear before learned Tribunal rather he was pursuing the challenge to his illegal order of removal by Academy before learned CAT and having been reinstated in service in March 2023 and his financial condition having improved that he has filed the instant petition before this Court raising a challenge to the award passed by learned Tribunal.

11. He further contends that he is willing to appear before learned Tribunal and would be filing affidavit in support of his claim and prays that learned Tribunal be directed to decide the said matter within a specified time.

12. However, the said prayer made by the petitioner has vehemently been opposed by Shri. Rakesh Bajpai as well as Shri. Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsels for the respondent no. 4 by contending that instant petition itself deserves to be dismissed having been filed with substantial delay challenging the award of learned Tribunal passed way back in December 2016 i.e. almost seven years. He also contended that as the petitioner failed to appear before learned Tribunal consequently it cannot be the case o