THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33296 of 1998 Date: 13-02-2008 Between: The Executive Engineer, S.P.Division No.I, Somasila. …Petitioners and Yandrapalli Penchalaiah, …Respondent The Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Writ Petition No.33296 of 1998 Order: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.99 of 1991 dated 06-08-1997, the Executive Engineer, Somasila Project is before this Court. The first respondent filed an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement of his services as a watchman. It was the case of the first respondent, before the Labour Court, that he was employed by the petitioner-Management in their stores from January, 1997, and that he continued in service till his services was illegally terminated with effect from 26-07-1982. He claimed that the petitioner paid him monthly wages of Rs.450/- and, since he was involved in Criminal Case No.302 of 1982, he was asked not to report for duty till completion of the Criminal Case and, on his being acquitted therein, he had approached the petitioner herein requesting that he be permitted to join duty. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as WW.1 and marked Ex.W.1, the judgment dated 12-12-1994 in C.C.No.302 of 1982. On behalf of the management, MWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M.1 and M.2 were marked. The Labour Court relied on the evidence of the first respondent as WW.1 coupled with the admission of MW.1 that the first respondent had worked from January, 1977 to 26-07- 1982 and that he was paid daily wages. The Labour Court held that, since the first respondent had completed more than 240 days of service in the 12-month period prior to his termination, failure on the part of the petitioner herein to comply with the conditions prescribed in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, prior to such termination of services of the first respondent- workman, was illegal. The Labour Court, while directing that the first respondent herein be reinstated into service with continuity of service, denied him back wages. Before this Court the learned Govt. Pleader for irrigation, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the inordinate delay and latches on the part of the first respondent in invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and, while the first respondent claimed to have worked up to 25-07-1982, it was only nine years thereafter in 1991 that he had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. It is well settled that mere delay or latches would not by itself necessitate rejection of an application filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Labour Court has the power to mould the relief taking into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the workman in invoking its jurisdiction. In the present case, while the application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed in the year 1991, the award was passed six years thereafter on 06-08-1997. The Labour Court has denied back wages to the first respondent- workman not only for the period from 26-07-1982 till the date he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in the year 1991, but also for the six years period, when the dispute was pending before it. The Labour Court has denied back wages for the aforesaid period for the delay of nine years in invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by the first respondent- workman. The award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any patent error of law apparent on the face of the record, necessitating interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) 13th February, 2008 lur