A petitioner is disentitled from receiving relief from a Constitutional Court if they fail to approach the court promptly and cannot explain inordinate delays in challenging a termination or an award.

ORDER

Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vinay Saraf.

1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2685/2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition assailing the order dated 13.09.2006 passed by Labour Court, rejecting the claim of appellant for reinstatement in service.

2. With the consent of parties, arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal.

3. Short facts of the case are that, appellant was initially inducted in service as Contingency Squadman (Chainman) w.e.f. 29.04.1992 by order dated 05.05.1992 for a period of 12 months and his services were terminated without issuance of any show cause notice or granting opportunity of hearing or adopting due process of law, though he completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. Treating the action of the respondent department as illegal retrenchment, the appellant raised the dispute before the appropriate Government and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by Labour Commissioner. However, the Labour Court rejected the claim by impugned award dated 13.09.2006 on merits. The award passed by Labour Court was challenged by the appellant in W.P. No.2685/2015, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.03.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant had worked for more than 240 days, therefore, he could not be terminated without following due process of law or without issuance of any show cause notice or granting opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the appellant worked from 29.04.1992 to 29.06.1993, and therefore, appellant is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. He further submits that learned writ court has erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground that inordinate delay was caused by the appellant in approaching to Labour Court and Writ Court as the appellant after his termination on 29.06.1993, raised the dispute for the first time on 02.01.2004 and thereafter filed the subject writ petition on 19.02.2015 challenging the award dated 13.09.2006. He submits that the appellant could not approach the Court due to financial constraints, and therefore, the appellant was entitled to get relief. He prays for setting aside the award dated 13.09.2006 passed by Labour Court and the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2685/2015.

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents/State on advance copy supported the orders passed by Labour Court as well as learned writ Court.

6. After perusal of the record, it appears that the appointment of appellant was contractual and he was appointed vide order dated 05.05.1992 for a period of 12 months temporarily. It is not the case of appellant that he continued to work even after completion of the said period, therefore, learned Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that appellant failed to substantiate his claim and it is not a case of illegal retrenchment.

7. Even as per the appellant, he was not permitted to work after 29.06.1993, but he raised the dispute for the first time on 02.04.2004, after more than 10 years. Thereafter, the award dated 13.09.2006 was pronounced on 12.12.2006, but subject writ petition was filed by the appellant on 19.02.2015, after a period of almost 09 years. The appellant is failed to explain the delay caused in approaching to the Labour Court as well as to the Writ Court. It is settled position of law that, if petitioner is failed to approach to the Constitutional Court promptly, no relief can be granted to him and his petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

8. In the case in hand, the appellant is failed to make out a case for interference on merits as also failed to explain the inordinate delay caused in approaching the Labour Court as well as Writ Court.

9. In the facts and circums