IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7518 of 2008 Date of decision: 7th May, 2008 Tika Ram Girls College, Sonepat … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Tika Ram Girls College, Sonepat through its Principal (hereinafter called the ‘petitioner- management’), challenging the impugned award (Annexure P-3) dated 24.01.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court. It was contended by the petitioner-management that respondent No.2 was appointed as Peon in the hostel of the college in year 1990. Her services were terminated on 22.07.1997 after a domestic enquiry. Chargesheet was served upon respondent No.2 and Enquiry Officer submitted report on 05.04.1997 holding that she was guilty of the charges leveled against her. A show- cause-notice was issued for termination of her services and thereafter, her services were terminated. Chargesheet served upon the worklady has Civil Writ Petition No. 7518 of 2008 been attached as Annexure P-1. One of the charges leveled against the worklady was that on 17th March, 1997, SDM had to visit at 3.30 p.m. and the worklady was found watching TV in the common room. Another charge was that on 29th May, 1997 at 12 noon a message was sent to her through Sh.Rajpal, Peon to bring hostel warden in the office of Vice Principal but she had refused to obey. It has been contended before us by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management that the learned Labour Court has committed a grave error by setting aside the punishment of removal from service with direction to reinstate the worklady with continuity of service and full back wages and that it has erred in holding deduction of one annual increment to be a reasonable punishment. During the course of arguments, we asked the counsel for the petitioner as to why there was no challenge to the findings of Labour Court to a preliminary issue framed as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-management was a fair and proper enquiry? Learned Labour Court had decided the issue on 21.09.2005 against the management holding that enquiry was neither fair nor proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not only failed to explain the delay but also could not give any explanation as to why a finding of the learned Labour Court on preliminary issue was not challenged. Furthermore, in the present case, learned Labour Court has finally given the award on 24th January, 2006. The present writ petition has been filed on 2nd May, 2008. There is a delay of more than 2 ¼ years and we find no reasonable ground to condone delay and laches on the part of the petitioner-management. On this count also, this writ petition is liable to fail. 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 7518 of 2008 Consequently, since there has been no challenge to the finding of the learned Labour Court to the preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, and also this writ petition suffers from laches and delay in challenging the award, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition. Ordered accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 07, 2008 rps 3