HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 14755 OF 2001 Thursday, the Twenty Third day of September, Two Thousand and Ten Between V.Kanak Raju Petitioners AND Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, Rep.by its Presiding Officer and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: Seeking to quash the order dated 13.1.1988 passed in I.D.No.40 of 1987 by the first respondent, upon reference by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal, for adjudication under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, confirming the order dated 31.12.1984 passed by the second respondent terminating the services of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. On 11.3.1984 while the petitioner was conducting bus bearing registration No. AAZ-1107 plying on Khammam to Yellandu route, it was surprised by the Checking Officials in between stages 10 and 11 at about 1800 hours and he was alleged to be have been involved in irregularities in issuing the tickets, having received the fare from passengers. The petitioner was served with a charge memo and not being satisfied with the explanation, a regular enquiry was ordered and in culmination of the enquiry, basing upon the enquiry report dated 11.9.1984, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice proposing to remove him from service by order dated 29.10.1984 and ultimately the proposed penalty of removal from service was imposed by order dated 31.12.1984. It is further his case that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 9.1.1985 did not bear any result, he raised the above I.D. before the first respondent, who, on reference, confirmed the order of removal by the award impugned in the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. It is contended by learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed as long back as on 31.12.1984, which was assailed by the petitioner in the above I.D. nearly after three years. The above I.D. was disposed of by order dated 13.1.1988 confirming the order of removal passed by the second respondent. The present writ petition is filed in the year 2001, nearly after 13 years and, therefore, on the ground of laches alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Adverting to this contention, a bare look at the award impugned, make is clear that there is abnormal delay of 13 years in filing the present writ petition. The reasons put forth by the petitioner are not convincing. Even if it is believed that the petitioner was confined to bed till March, 1995, the time gap till 2001 in which year the Writ Petition is filed, is not explained. As contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, there is abnormal delay of sixteen years in assailing the order of termination, without there being any plausible explanation for such an abnormal delay. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief on the ground of laches. Consequently, the award impugned is confirmed and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari September 23, 2010 MAS