Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S San Automotive Industries Pvt/ Ltd vs Manoj Parjapati And Another on 24 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126156
CWP-24322-2024 1
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24322-2024
Date of Decision:24.09.2024
M/S SAN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PVT/ LTD. ......... Petitioner
Versus
MANOJ PARJAPATI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award
dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) whereby Labour Court has answered
the reference in favour of the workman.
2. The petitioner-Management is assailing award dated
05.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by Labour Court, Faridabad. The said
award was undisputedly passed in October' 2018 whereby workman was
ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
3. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed
his inability to advance any plausible reason for filing writ petition after
the expiry of 6 years from the date of passing of impugned award.
4. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in 'Mrinmoy
Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has
held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and
laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who
approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126156
rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary
relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to
invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed
the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the
lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of
action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:
"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal
of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the
considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-
suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An
applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other
words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of
time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be
granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This
Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity.
Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born
in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a
given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to
assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away
and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed
cause of action.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and
caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching
the writ court is explained which would appeal to the
conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be
gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come
the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad
circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the
extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and
circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126156
straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The
ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends
upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the
facts have travelled.
11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no
fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has
to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has
been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not
revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of
action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances
on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought
to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it
is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches,
the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole
ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge
in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his
own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of
fundamental right but while exercising discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to
necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on
the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court."
5. In the wake of above discussion and finding, this Court is of
the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
24.09.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
