IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 09.07.2025 JAI BHAGWAN ….Appellant versus PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.

….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present:- Mr. Robert Kanwar, Advocate for the appellant.

*****

SUDHIR SINGH, J. CM-2673-LPA-2025 For the reasons given in the application the same is allowed and the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA-1084-2025 Challenge in the present intra Court appeal is to the order dated

09.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had laid challenge to the award dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Labour Court, whereby the reference was answered against the appellant on the ground of limitation.

3. It is an admitted position on record that a claim petition was preferred by the appellant on 01.04.2019. The services of the appellant were terminated on 05.12.2015. As per the provisions of Section 2-A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the claim petition could be filed within 3 years from the date of the dismissal of the service of an employee/workman.

4. It is settled law that the delay is genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. It is further settled that the delay disentitles a party to the discretionary relief under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If a litigant keeps sleeping over his rights for a long period and wakes up when he does have an impetus either from the judicial verdict of the Court or otherwise, such litigant is not entitled to any relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25 has held as under:-

“Delay, laches and acquiescence

20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non-consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court.

Laches

21. The word “laches” is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness”. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.

22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.

23. A defence of laches can only be allowed when there is no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a