THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 158 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. Writ petitioner joined in the agricultural department as Field Man as per proceedings of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kadapa vide Roc.No. 5017/59, dated 28-8-1959. He came to be terminated on 13- 9-1963. He filed M.P.No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (herein after referred to as ‘Tribunal’) for reinstatement and continuity of service and also for attendant benefits. He withdrew the above said M.P. and raised an Industrial Dispute as provided under Section 2(a) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Tribunal entertained the dispute as I.D. No. 248 of 2004. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, he got himself examined as WW-1 and marked Ex.W-1 to W-10. On behalf of the respondents, they examined one witness as MW1. 3. The Tribunal, on considering the material brought on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and accordingly dismissed the same by an Award dated 23-1-2008. The said Award is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been pursuing with the department for his reinstatement by submitting repeated representation and therefore, there are no laches on his part. 6. The petitioner got himself examined as WW-1 and marked 10 documents on his behalf. However, he has not placed on record any proof to show that he has been pursuing with the department for his reinstatement from the year 1963. Indeed the Tribunal on a thorough examination of the evidence brought on record made the following observations. “The petitioner being a Fieldman comes under the purview of the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Surprisingly he approached the Court long after 40 years. The abnormal delay has not been explained by the petitioner since there may not be any cause. As per the Service Register his date of birth is 1-7-1934. He is now aged about 73 years and long ago crossed the age of superannuation. Since he worked on temporary basis under the state Sub-Ordinate services Rules and replaced by a regular employees he is not entitled for any benefits. Under these circumstances the petition has to be dismissed. In the result the petition is dismissed holding that the petitioner is not entitled for setting aside the order of termination issued by the respondents management on 13-9-1963 and consequently not entitled for any benefits.” 7. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and convincing reason for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner. There is a delay of about 37 years in approaching the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. He attained the age of superannuation long prior to his approaching the Tribunal. He has not offered any reasons whatsoever much less valid reasons for maintaining silence for such a long period. I do not see any flaw in the award warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 2nd April, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 158 OF 2009 2nd April, 2009.