IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.13009 OF 2019 (L-RES) Between:
Mr.Sriranga Vishnu Shanbhag, S/o Vishnu N Shanbhag, Aged about 65 years, R/a No.16, Doral Bungalow Layout, Puttenahalli Main Road, J.P.Nagar, 6th Phase, Bangalore-78.
(By Smt.Kalpana P.V., Advocate) And:
…Petitioner M/s.The Management of Arya Bhavan Sweets, K.G.Road, Santhosh Shopping Complex, K.G.Road Circle, Bangalore-560 009, Rep. by Surendra Kumar Gupta, ...Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the award passed by the presiding officer principal Labour Court, Bangalore passed in I.D.No.191/1999 dated 23rd November, 2006 vide Annexure-A and allow the claim statement.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the award passed by the Labour Court dated 23.11.2006. Present petition is presented on 20.03.2019. Thus, there is delay of 4497 days.
2. Petitioner has filed an affidavit along with application for condonation of delay of 4497 days. Perused paragraphs 4 to 10 of affidavit. Even though petitioner has expressed inability with reference to finance and ill-health, ill-health has not been explained between 2007 to 2013. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was admitted to hospital. Sickness between 2006 to 2013 is only with reference to suffering from Astama. From 27.07.2013 to 20.03.2019 is relating to an accident occurred due to which petitioner was suffering from fracture dislocation of left Ankle and fracture of distal Phalanx left ring finder and underwent operation and certain rods have been inserted.
3. The enormous delay from 2007 to 2013 has not been explained. For the period of 2013 to 2019, not sufficient material has been produced for the delay. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 and so also in another decision in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Dugal Kumar reported 2008 14 SCC 295, examined under what circumstances, writ petition could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. One of the principle is relating to delay and laches. Paragraph 24 of Eastern Coalfield’s judgment is reproduced as under;
‘24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant- Company. It is well-settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary.
One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ Court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extra- ordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.”
4. In the present case there is delay as well as laches on the part of the petitioner during the period from 2007 to 2013 and from 2013 to 2019. Thus, enormous delay of 4497 days in filing the writ petition has not been made out.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Sd/- JUDGE SB