ORDER

1. The petition arises out of the award dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, Gwalior, in and by which, Labour Court dismissed the claim of the claimant/petitioner/workman.

2. Brief facts which led to filing of this petition are as under :--

i- Petitioner was appointed on the post of Pump Attender in Public Health & Engineering Department on 1/1/1990 and was working on the same post since then. Without giving show-cause notice to him or affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, authority removed him from the service.

ii- Petitioner filed his claim before the Labour Court, which was contested by respondents denying the fact made by the petitioner and submitted that workman/claimant/petitioner was neither appointed on the alleged post nor he worked for the period as alleged nor he was given any salary / remuneration by the department.

iii- After considering the entire facts and legal proposition, learned Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that Labour Court has erred in passing the impugned award / order in dismissing the claim. Workman/petitioner was appointed as a Pump Attender on 1.1.1990 and he was wrongly removed from the work on 1.3.1991 without issuing any notice. Removal from the work by respondents is against the provisions of law and similarly situated persons are still working in the department, but the petitioner has been wandering for the job for a long time. Workman/petitioner has filed the proof of his work, but Labour Court ignored it and wrongly dismissed the claim.

4. Per contra, learned Government Counsel appearing for respondents/department opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was neither appointed in the department nor he has been given any remuneration. Petitioner did not work as a Pump Attender. Learned Labour Court discussed all the issues raised by the petitioner in its impugned award/order and there is no patent perversity in the order of Labour Court. There is no violation of any provision and principle of natural justice has not been flouted. Thus, this Court should not interfere with the award/order of Labour Court in exercise of superintendence power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Government Advocate further submits, as a primary objection, that this petition has been filed in the year 2017 while award/order of Labour Court has been passed on 14.2.2013. Thus, petition has been filed with an inordinate delay without explaining the delay and laches. Thus, it should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches without entering in the merit of the case.

5. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :--

10. In the writ petition, while setting aside the award of the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan [Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan, (2007) 9 SCC 86 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 668] and also another judgment of the High Court and observed that a person who practices fraud for securing employment cannot perpetuate on the ground of delay and the learned Single Judge faulted the Labour Court for exercising discretion under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and interfering with the punishment of dismissal from service. In our considered view, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the tribunal, only, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunal and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. In our view, when the Labour Court has exercised its discretion keeping in view the facts o