O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent in Approval Petition No.202 of 2010 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 29.11.2010 dismissing the 1st respondent from service.

2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent was working as Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. He was unauthorised absent from duty for 10 days and 18 days in the month of July 2008 and May 2009, respectively. Therefore, the petitioner-Corporation has issued a charge memo as against the 1st respondent-employee for his unauthorised absent from duty. After enquiry, the 1st respondent-employee was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.11.2010 by the petitioner-Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner-Corporation filed a petition under Section 33 (2) (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Approval Authority namely Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai/the 2nd respondent herein, for getting approval for dismissal order dated 29.11.2010 and the same was numbered as A.P.No.202 of 2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued notice to the 1st respondent to file his counter to the approval petition.

3. After hearing both sides, the 2nd respondent by the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 has refused to grant approval to the order of dismissal of the 1st respondent from service dated 29.11.2010 by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works Ltd., reported in 1978 (2) LLN 1. Challenging the said order, the petitioner-

Corporation has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent-employee was continuously absent from duty. Therefore, he was served a charge memo and dismissed from service. However, the 2nd respondent has refused to grant approval to the order of dismissal. The petitioner-Corporation has complied all the managing requirements in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the said impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed.

5. On considering the above said facts, the petitioner-Corporation has issued charge memo against the 1st respondent-employee for his unauthorised absent from duty and subsequently, he was removed from service by an order dated 29.11.2010 by the petitioner and the same has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent for getting approval and the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works Ltd., reported in 1978 (2) LLN 1.

6. On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the said order has been passed by the 2nd respondent in A.P.No.202 of 2010, dated 28.10.2016 and the same has been challenged by the petitioner nearly after 6 years and there is no satisfactory explanation from the petitioner-Corporation for inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

7. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case, reported in 1994 SCC, Supl.(2) 195 [Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India), has held as follows;

'8. The petitioner sought to contend that because of laches on his part, no third party rights have intervened and that by granting relief to the petitioner no other person's rights are going to be affected. He also cited certain decisions to that effect. This plea ignores the fact that the said consideration is only one of the considerations which the court will take into account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from laches. It is not the only consideration.

It is a well-settled policy of law that the parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not s