C.W.P.No.18894 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18894 of 2006 Date of Decision : 18.2.2008. Sri Bhagwan .....Petitioner versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri G.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for appointing the petitioner in view of the judgment in an Industrial dispute in a case of other workmen having attained finality by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. The petitioner has worked as daily wager with the respondents for more than 11 months. It is the case of the petitioner itself that his services were terminated on 1.8.1987 without giving any notice, pay or allowances or retrenchment compensation. It is pointed out that in case of some other workmen, the Labour Court vide Award dated 4.12.2002, decided the reference in favour of the workmen and ordered reinstatement. The writ petition against the said Award was dismissed and the Hon'ble C.W.P.No.18894 of 2006 2 Supreme Court modified the Award in respect of the back wages. The petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for taking benefits of such proceedings by way of filing the present writ petition. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated in the year 1987. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2006 i.e. after more than 18 years of termination of his services. The writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches. Even otherwise, the petitioner's claim for a writ of Mandamus on the basis of the decision in other reference is misconceived. The decision in other case cannot be made basis for relief to the petitioner when no action was initiated by the petitioner against the action of the respondents in terminating his services. In view of the said facts, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 18-02-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE