← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/22636/2016dismissed

Lal Singh v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court And ORS

2017-02-22Mr. Justice Darshan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.02.2017 CWP No.22636 of 2016 (O&M) Lal Singh .... Petitioner Vs.

Presiding Officer & ors.

.... Respondents CWP No.22649 of 2016 (O&M) Pale Ram & anr.

.... Petitioners Vs.

Presiding Officer & ors.

.... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***** RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (ORAL) These petitions have been filed against the awards dated 10.11.2003 and 23.10.2003 made by the Labour Court, Faridabad dismissing the references. The same cannot be said to be filed within reasonable time in order to lay challenge thereto. If the petitioners felt aggrieved they should have taken timely steps with due diligence in pursuing the case. If their lawyer duped them as easily blamed in the writ petition, they were free to take whatever action they wished against him. Blaming a poor counsel for causing 13 years of delay in approaching Court is preposterous and does not by itself absolve them of their negligence in pursuing legal remedy. There is no satisfactory explanation for the humongous delay in the petition or why they did not prudently remain in Sonia Bura 2017.02.28 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP No.22636 of 2016 (O&M) -2touch with their counsel if they ever engaged one. Even if they did I would not interfere. It would be wholly unjust, unfair and inequitable on the management to summon them, assuming the petitioners have a case to contest, at this distance of time when they must have rearranged their affairs many years ago and employed other hands meanwhile leaving no scope for consideration of reinstatement or to compensation in lieu thereof. This Court would not entertain this petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction on a stale and dead claim which would be unfair to reopen after more than 13 years of the passing of the awards. Dismissed.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 22.02.2017 sonia 1.Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes 2.Whether reportable?

No Sonia Bura 2017.02.28 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh