LPA No.1157 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.1157 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 Bal Kirshan ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.2.2009, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who was working on daily wage basis was terminated by respondent No.3 on 1.1.1982 without assigning any reason. He raised an industrial dispute by submitting demand notice dated 17.8.1984. The aforesaid demand notice was rejected vide letter dated 18.12.1998. He filed a review application, which was also LPA No.1157 of 2009 2 dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner was terminated by respondent No.3 on 1.1.1982. Undisputedly, vide order dated 18.12.1998 Annexure P- 8, the petitioner was informed that the matter was examined and after consideration no relevant facts was found to make reference for the industrial dispute. Undisputedly, the writ petition was filed in the year 2009. 5. Learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of 18 years from the date of his termination. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. Madhavankutty and others, 2002(2) SCC 455 and argued that law does not provide any limitation for the appropriate government to exercise its power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the matter of Nedungadi's case (supra), the Apex Court simply says that there is no time limit for appropriate government to exercise power. However, we are of the view that this Court must be approached under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at the earliest, which admittedly the petitioner failed to do so. The petitioner has not explained laches. The petitioner had filed writ petition after 18 years from the date of his termination. Not only this, present appeal filed against the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge on 3.2.2009, is also with much delay of 150 days, which we are not inclined to condone. The petitioner has not made out any good ground to LPA No.1157 of 2009 3 condone the laches in filing the writ petition and also in filing the present appeal. 7. Application for condonation of delay as well as appeal are dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 22.02.2010 sk.