IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12529 of 1999 Date of decision:12.05.2010 Kewlanand Pandey ….Petitioner versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Registrar and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate, for the respondents-Kurukshetra University. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order dated 19.02.1992 issued by the Convener of the Mess Committee, the 5th respondent in the writ petition. The decision to remove the petitioner from service had come to be challenged 7 years later on a contention by him that he had been making several representations but was not considered and that he was kept under suspension without putting him even on subsistence allowance. 2. At the time when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and only the senior counsel Civil Writ Petition No.12529 of 1999 - 2 - Shri Sibal appearing on behalf of the Kurukshetra University, is present. Having regard to the fact that the case is of the year, 1999 and the case has been on my board for quite some time in the regular list, I hasten to take up the case for final disposal by reference to the records and with the assistance of the learned senior counsel. 3. Shri Sibal contends that the University is not the employer of the petitioner and a Mess Committee, which had appointed him, had decided to remove him from service for proven misconduct and the petitioner cannot have any relief against the University treating the University as an employer. It is the further contention that even before the institution of the writ petition, the petitioner had joined along with others in the year 1989 when he was still in service in Civil Writ Petition No.289 of 1989 where along with the host of others, the petitioner claimed the relief of regularization of service. This Court taking note of the objections raised on behalf of the University and the State that the status of the petitioner as a workman under them itself was in dispute and, held that the appropriate forum of adjudication would be only the Labour Court and granted liberty to the persons to resort to industrial adjudication through the Labour Court after raising a dispute in the manner provided under the provisions of the Act. In this case also, there is a disputed question with reference to the petitioner's status as a workman under the University. If the petitioner had obtained an earlier adjudication that his status would be decided through an industrial adjudication in the manner set out above, the petitioner cannot have a Civil Writ Petition No.12529 of 1999 - 3 - remedy before this Court complaining of termination of service as illegal. 4. The case suffers from a further vice by the fact that even assuming that such relationship with the University existed and the decision of the 5th respondent could be attributed to be the decision of the University, a dismissal order which was passed in the year, 1992 could not have been challenged after 7 years. No explanation at all had been given in the writ petition, except to state that the petitioner had made several representations against the alleged illegal termination by the 5th respondent. I uphold the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was guilty of laches. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.05.2010 sanjeev