fl r9i ^U^l Petitioner 'esDondeRt [LlN0. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Divisional Forest Officer, North Forest, North Forest Division (Now Raipur Forest Division), Raipur. S/o Ward Distt. Raftiial Gandheshwar, Kaiiuram Gandheshwar, No.7, Badaipara, Mahasamund (CG). 'resent :• Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. ^etitioner. Govt. Advocate for the Stats/ rtfT Sy this petition, filed undsr Article 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner impugns the order dated 21-2-2002 (Annexure- P/1) whsreunder it was directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,450/- as arrears OT v/ages. 2) The Endisputable facts in nutshej! are that the resoondent was l^" engaged as skiited Sabour by the petitioner department. His servicss were discontinued with effect from 6-11-1982. The respondent raised an industria! dispute. The Deputy Labour Commlssioner, Raipur, referred the dispute vide ietter No.2580 dated 25-9-1991 to the Labour Court sn case No.39/91,'!D Act(Ref.). The Labour Court after hearina the parties passed the award on 3-11-1992 (Annexure-P/2) holding that the discontinuation of sewices of the respondent was iiiega!. Thus, the petitioner was directed to reinstate t'ne respondent in service •—,• with fuil backwages. The said award attained finality, as the petitioner dld not move higher Court for setting aside the said award. !n pursuance of the same, the respondent was reinstated in seroices and was granfed back wages also. According to the petitioner, after joinins the service the respondent worked from 21-1-1995 to 14-2-1995, thereafter 'ne remained absent. The petitioner did not take any step to initiate any proceeding against the respondent. 3) Ths respondent flled an apolication under Seciion 33C of the Industria! Disputes Act, 1947 stattng that though t'ne amount due to him from 1-11-1982 to 29-12-1994 had been paid by the petitioner department, but no wages of skiiled worker was paid by the petitioner from 30-12-1994 onwards. The respondent in his appiication (Annexure-P/3) has c'eariy stated about the date of resuming work in the office and non-payrnent of his salary during the period up to 30-9- 1997. The petitioner fiied its rep!y (Annexure-P/4) denying alS the facts stating that the respondent remained intentlonaily absent and the respondent was not entit'ed to any payment on the principie of no work no pay. The Labour Court after having considered ai! the aspects vide impugned order dated 21-2-2002 (Annexure-P/1) held that the petitioner had faiied to prove the fact that the respondent remained absent without intimation Srom 14-2-1995 onwards and as such the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,450/- ss back wages, for non payment of wages to the respondent. 4) The pefitioner has not taken any steps from the date of the Impugned order i.e. 21-2-2002 tili filing of this petition on 23-3-2007. Even eariier aiso according to the petitioner, the respondent was absent. No step was taken on the part of the petitioner to take any departmental action against the respondent for a period of more than fiveyears. 5) The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power *tl^n 1 ag Director an< another vs. K. Thangappan and another obsen/ed as under: "Delay or 'aches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the Hiah Court v/hen they exercise their discretionary powers under Articte 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke Its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the appiicant to asssrt his right as taken in the conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamenta! right is invoived the mattsr is sti!! within the discretion of the Court as pointed ouS in Durga Prasad vs. Chief Controller of imporis and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judiciaiiy and reasonably." S) I have heard iearned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings, judgment/award passed by the Labour Court and other documents appended thereto. !t is evident that the Labour Court has recorded the finding after hearing both the parties and perusing thsir averments made in the appiication as wei! as in reply, while coming to the conciusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent remained absent. The natural consequence wouid be grant of back wages when the case of the respondent is that he continuously attended the office, but the petitioner did not pay any wages for the period he had worked. Jhere is no infirmity, iilegaiity or jurisdictionai srror in the impugned award. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 322 Uown 7) Thus, this Court in exereise of its supen/isory jurisdiction is of the view that no interference is cailed for as the impugned award is passed on facte and on appreciation of evidences produced by the parties. This petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge