IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.8165 of 2011 Date of decision : 9.5.2011 Satnam Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a grievance that an ex-parte award was delivered against him in the year 2004 against which he moved an application for restoration of reference in the year 2005. In the said application it was pleaded that he was not aware of the proceedings. The application moved for setting aside the ex-parte award of 2004 was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar on 6.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reason for this inordinate delay is that he was labouring under the impression that the matter is still pending with the Tribunal even though by virtue of the notification issued by the State of Punjab, Industrial Tribunals were constituted under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the industrial disputes C.W.P.No.8165 of 2011 -2- relating to any of the matter specified in 2nd Schedule or 3rd schedule of the Act. It was thus contended that there was a bona fide impression created in the mind of the petitioner that his matter is still to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. On due consideration of the material before me, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is hit by delay and latches. In the first instance the claim of the petitioner was declined in the year 2004 when he failed to present himself before the Tribunal and it proceeded against him ex-parte and gave an opportunity to the representative of the management to get his statement recorded to which the said representative stated that because of the reason that the workman had failed to produce anything in his favour, he did not wish to produce anything on behalf of the management. The Tribunal then went on to dispose of the case by observing that since no evidence was led by the workman, no relief can be granted to him and the reference was disposed of. In 2005 an application styled as 'an application for restoration of reference dismissed in default on 8.12.2004', was filed. Even this application with its styling was a misnomer as the reference was not dismissed in default rather it was declined on the ground that since the workman had failed to produce any evidence in his favour. The application of the petitioner dated 5.1.2005 was dismissed on 6.10.2008. A perusal of the record reveals that no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the Industrial Tribunal noticing that apart from the fact that the petitioner had not put in appearance, the application was also uninspiring as no affidavit was filed in support thereof declined the same. C.W.P.No.8165 of 2011 -3- The petitioner has now approached this Court after a lapse of almost three years and the only explanation given to this Court for this delayed reaction is that the petitioner was labouring under the impression that his matter is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. I am afraid such an explanation cannot be accepted. The petitioner clearly was aware of his remedy when he approached the Tribunal in the year 2004. A person who approaches the Court is also expected to be vigilant about his remedy even thereafter, and it cannot be expected that he would be meander through the proceedings irresponsibly. For the reason that the cumulative effect of the entire appraisal of the fact that the petitioner has been slack in approaching this Court, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed. 9.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss