Telangana High Court
The Management Of Deccan College Of ... vs The Labour Court Iii on 25 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.96 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri M.Vijaya Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This intra court appeal takes exception to the order dated
20.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.10790 of 2023, whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as, 'the
employer') against the award of the Labour Court - III, Hyderabad
(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Labour Court'), in I.D.No.164 of
2009, dated 06.01.2016, was dismissed on the singular reason
that the writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay of almost
seven years.
4. Learned counsel for the employer fairly submits that
although the employer was put to notice by the Labour Court and
its counsel entered appearance and filed written statement, the
employer was not aware about the passing of the award on
06.01.2016. As soon as the employer came to know about it, he
promptly filed the writ petition, which could not have been
dismissed on the ground of delay in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company
Limited v. District Board, Bhopur 1.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/workman, on the other
side, supported the order of the learned Single Judge and submits
that the award was even published by way of a notification which
is clear from G.O.Rt.No.401, dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure 4).
Thus, no interference may be made.
6. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above and no other point is pressed.
7. The learned Single Judge has recorded the finding in the
impugned order as under:-
"8. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to
note that the impugned Award in I.D.No.164 of 2009 was passed
by respondent No.1/Labour Court on 06.01.2016 and the
petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2023 i.e.,
after a lapse of almost seven years, for which delay, no cogent
reasons are assigned. Thus, it clearly shows that the petitioner
(1992) 2 SCC 598
was reluctant to challenge the impugned Award in a timely
manner.
9. As regards delay in approaching this Court, a Division
Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2021 in Writ
Appeal Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, has categorically held
the delay of 5 to 18 years in preferring a Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as inordinate delay.
10. In the present case, since there is an inordinate delay of
almost seven years on the part of the petitioner, for which, no
valid or cogent reasons are assigned, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the present Writ Petition. As such, the present Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. It is clear that the learned Single Judge relied on a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of
2016 decided on 13.12.2021, wherein the delay of five years in
filing the writ petition was held to be inordinate/enormous.
9. So far the judgment on which the learned counsel for the
employer has placed reliance is concerned, it shows that when
there exist laches and negligence on the part of a party, delay is a
relevant factor on the strength of which interference can be
declined. In the instant case, the employer was admittedly put to
notice by the Labour Court and it participated in the proceedings.
Thereafter, 'due diligence' was expected from the employer about
the stage and fate of the said I.D. Case No.164 of 2009. The
award was published as per Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Ordinarily, upon such publication of Award in the
gazette, a presumption can be drawn that it came to the notice of
the employer.
10. In this view of the matter, in our view, the learned Single
Judge has taken a plausible view and rightly declined interference
because of delay and laches.
11. The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
25.02.2025
sa/vs
