L.P.A. No.1233 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A. No.1233 of 2011 Date of decision: 1.11.2011 Satnam Singh ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocates for the appellant. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.5.2011 dismissing the writ petition principally on ground of delay and laches since the impugned award was passed on 14.10.2004 and the writ petition against that award was filed in 2011 from which the present appeal arises. 2. The appellant workman raised an industrial dispute against an order of stoppage of 24 increments with cumulative effect passed by the Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran for misconduct while working as a conductor. These punishments were inflicted by 11 separate orders passed on 11 different dates between 7.5.1981 and 1.1.1989. The dispute raised under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) was espoused by the Union. The dispute was referred by the appropriate government under Section10 (1) (d) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 18.4.2004. The workman did not appear before the Tribunal. He was proceeded ex parte. Since it was for L.P.A. No.1233 of 2011 2 the workman to prove his case and there was no evidence led by him in support of his claim against the punishment order, the Industrial Tribunal held that no relief could be granted to him. The reference was answered accordingly by award dated 14.10.2004. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2004 the appellant filed an application for restoration of the reference before the Tribunal. The said application came to be dismissed on 6.10.2008. The application for restoration of the case was declined as none put in appearance on behalf of the appellant nor was any affidavit filed in support of the pleadings and prayer for restoration. Against that order and the original award, the appellant preferred the writ petition in 2011 after a further culpable delay of 3 years. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. We find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the totality of circumstances and that this Court should not come to the aid of a person who has slept for far too long without valid cause, legal or factual justification. 6. The appellant retired from service on 13.7.2005. As noted above, the punishment orders were passed 22 to 30 years back. The distance of time also precludes us from interfering dehors merits of the claim. 7. We find no reason to interfere in appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE November 1,2011 nk