IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19308 of 2008(W) -------------------------- ID.40/1997 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.B. PREM CHAND LAL, AGED 56, S/O. BALAJI, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEKUTTIPARAMBIL, IDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR POST, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.NELSON J.MANAYIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CADBURY INDIA LTD., P.B. NO.7, KOTTAYAM-10, REP. BY ITS HEAD COCO OPERATIONS. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.19308 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in I.D.No.40/1997. Ext.P1 is dated 21.1.2004. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 25.6.2008. The explanation for the delay is contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition, which reads thus: “7. The 1st respondent/management has already filed W.P(C). No.25787/2004 before this Hon'ble Court challenging that part of the Award holding that the first respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner/workman and the petitioner/workman is entitled to get alternate employment of watcher/peon afresh under the petitioner, if a vacancy in that post arises before the superannuation age of the 1st respondent. That W.P(C).No.25787/04 was admitted by this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner/workman has filed counter affidavit. 8. The delay in filing the Writ Petition was happened only since the file in respect of the case was misplaced at the office of the counsel and there had no wilful laches or negligence in prosecuting the matter at the earliest.” The above explanation is not at all convincing. Even if the file has been misplaced, the petitioner ought to have reconstructed the same within a reasonable time instead of waiting for more than four years. As such, the explanation furnished cannot be w.p.c.19308/08 2 accepted as due diligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner should have challenged Ext.P1 at least when he received notice in W.P(C).No. 25787/2004 filed by the management against the same award. In the above circumstances, notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent-management, I am of opinion that this Court should not entertain this writ petition on account of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge