^l^/^Si^^SS- t;:i?^l^w£i'?^s?^ES;i HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR W,PJ(L)No.Mp3of2007 Petitioner : Bhaiya Lall, S/o. Sobhnatti, aged about 52 years, working at Katkona Colliery, S.E.C.L, Dlstrict Korea (C.G.) R^pondente Versus 1. 2. 3. South Eastem Coalfiekte Ltd., Through: The Chairman-Cum- Managing Dlrector, S.E.C.L. Bitaspur, Seepat Road, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) General Manager, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur Area, S.E.C.L. District Korea (C.G.) Sub Area Manager, Katkona Colliery, S.E.C.L. P.0. Katkona Colliery, District Korea (C.G.) (VVrit Petiljon under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India) Sjnale BenchL Hon'ble Justice Satish K. Aanihotri Present : ShriS.N.Prasad.AdvocateforthepeUttoner. ORDER (Passed on 12na July, 2007) The petitioner is aggrieved by fhe order dated 24.10.1990 (Annexure P-1) whereby and whereunder the petitioner, who was eng^ed as Piece Rated Loader, was not converted into Time Rated Job as General Mazdcwr, Categoiy I. According to fhe leamed cozmsel for the petitioner, the petitioner came to kaow oiily in fhe year 2005 fhat some Piece Rated Loaders have been converteri into Time Rated Job as General Mazdoor, Category I. After a delay of 15 years, fhe petitioner filed an appUcation before the Labour Coiirt in 2006. The Labour Court Uuder Payment of Wages Act vide oider dated I : .^i^^^^^iK^^^ ;f'~S3aBgB88K889BjKBiil^M 04.042006 (Annexure P-9) came to the couclusion fhat uader provisions oftfae Payment ofWages Act, fhie application for grant of wages/arrera has to be ffled wittun a period of 12 months, The petitmner has not takea any steps for about 15 years and has further not submitted justified reasons for inonlinate de]ay. In view of fhat, fhe petition was disinissed on fhe grouud of delay. 2. The ludustrial Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner dismissed the appel vide order dated 19.12.2006 (Aunexure P-11), upholding fhe reasons aad order passed by fhe authority under fhe P&yment ofWages Act 3. The petitioner has ffled the preseut petitiou without funushing justifiable reasons for such unexplained inordinate long delay. I have not found any irregularily, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by fhe Court betow. 4. Tfais petitton has been filed after a long iuordmate aud unexplained delay of fifteen years. The petitioner has not been able to produce or submit any reason for condonation of such a long delay in filing this petition. 5. It is weU setfled that High Court in exercise of its discretion does not orduiarily assist fhe taidy aad the mdolent or the acquiescent and fhe leftiaiyc as fhe belated approach may have fbe effect of mflicting not onfy hardship as inconvenience but also injustice on fhird parties. 6. The Supremc Court in P.8. Badasivaswamy Vs. State ofTamU Nadu1 obsenred as undep 'It is not that there is any perk>d of tunitation for ttue Courts to excrcise thcir powcis under Articte 226, nor is it that fhiere can ncver be a case where the Courts caaaot mterfere in a matter after fhe passage of a certaia lengfh of tiine. But it -wouM be a sound aad wisc exercise of d^cretton for fhe Courts to refase to exercise theu' extraDrdiuaiy powers under Article 226 in thc case of persons who do not approach it expcditiously for rcUef and who stand by aad allow thiags to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stalc claims aad tiy to unsettle setfled matters." 7. The Supreme Court in State of M.P. & others Vs. Naadlal Jaiswd aad othars2 further observed as under: "Now, it is weH setfled fhat fhe power of fhe High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and fhe .. H^h Court ia the exercfee of its discretion does aot onlmanfy assist thc tardy aad fhe indoleiit or fhe acquiescent aud fhe tefhargic. If tihere M mordinate delay on fhe part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such de]ay is not satisfactorily cxplaincd, fhe High Court inay declme to intenrenc and grant reliefin fhe exercise ofits writjurisdlction. The evolution of ttus nilc of laches or delay is preinised upon a niuaber of factors. The High Court does not ordinarity pennit a belated resort to the extraDrdinaiy reincdy under the writ jurisdiction bccausc it is likely to cause confusion aud pubUc ioconveiuence aad bring in its traia new injustices. The rights of fhird parties inay interyene and if thc writ jurisdiction is exercised on a wrft petition filed aftier uureasonable delay, it inay have fhe effect of inflictuig not onfy haidship and iaconvenience but also injusticc on thud partics. When fhe writ jurisdiction of fhc H^h Court is invoked, uiiexplained delay coupled with the creatKMi of fhird party rights ia fhe tneanwhfle is aa iinportaat fector wtuch always weighs with the H^h Court ia decidmg whether or not to cxemse such jurisdiction. Wc do not thiak it neccssaiy to buiden this judgmcnt with 'AIR 1974 SC 2271 2 (1986) 4 SCC 566 reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been einphasized time and again that whcre thcrc is inordinate and uncxplamcd delay and fhird party rights arc crcated in thc iatervening period, the High Court wouU declme to iaterfere, even if fhe State action coinplamed ofis unconstitutioual or fllegaL" 8. The Supreme Court in Burn Staadard 'Co. Ud. & others Vs. Diaabandhu Majumdar & aaotlier3 also obsenred as zmder; "The very conduct ofnon-raising ofan objection in the matter by fhc exnployce, in our view, should be a suflBcieat reason for the H^h Court, not to entertain such appUcations on grounds of acquiescence, unduc delay aad laches." 9. The Supreme Court in Karnatato Powar Corporation Ltd. throu^i Its Chairman & Managiag DIrector &> another Vs. K. Thangappaa & aaother4 observed as under: "Delay or laches is one ofthe factors which is to be bome in miad by the High Court whcn fhcy exercisc their discretfonaiy powers uader Article 226 of fhe ConstitutiDn. la an. appropriate casc the Hi^h Court may rcfuse to invoke its extraordinaiy powers if there is such negt^ence or omisstan on the part of fhe appKcant to assert his right as teken in conjunctiou with the lapse of time aad other cuciunstanccs, causes prejudice to thc opposite pariy. Even where fundaiaental right is iavolved the inatter is stiU withia the discretion of fhe Coiut as poiated out in Diuga Prasad V. Chief Controllcr of Iinports aad Exports, Of couisc, the dtecretion has to be exerejsed judicially and reasonabfy." 10, In the present case, fhe cause of action arose on 24.10.1990, when the cominuiucation was sent by the State Goveraiaent to the authori.ti.es for graat of revised pay-scale. The petitiouer has not taken any steps ever since till ttus 3 (1995)43cc 172 -* (2006) 4 SCC 322 petitioa was filed in 11.04.2007 and remained tardy aad indolent. This belated approach would certamly cause hardship and inconveiuence to other side. 11. As a result, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed sumiiiarily. j Jndu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge tr