1. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Saroj Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Praveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent-1.
2. The writ petition is directed against award dated 09/10.10.2006 made by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Industrial Dispute Case No. 28 of 2004.
3. Learned counsel for the parties at the outset submitted that a similar issue has already been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 670 (SB) of 2005 (Union of India and others vs. Panna Lal), decided on 18.04.2017 and the judgment reads as under:
"1. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Advocate, for petitioner. Notice was issued to respondent on 19.05.2005. Perused office-report dated 06.04.2017. Service upon respondent is deemed sufficient. None is present on behalf of respondent despite the case having been called in revised. In the circumstances, we proceed to hear and decide this case finally after hearing learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Applicant-respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by Central Government by Notification dated 10.01.1983 and the said industrial dispute referred for adjudication reads as under:
"Whether the action of the Railway Administration in relation to their Loco Shed, Northern Railway, Lucknow in terminating the services of the following 207 workers in Annexure with effect from 9.4.1987 is justified. If not, to what relief are the said workmen entitled?"
3. The Reference was answered by Labour Court in favour of applicant-respondent and thereagainst Writ Petition filed by employer was dismissed by this Court. Consequently applicant-respondent was reinstated in service and after screening in 1992 was empanelled with due seniority. Original Application No. 496 of 1996 was thereafter filed by applicant-respondent claiming that he was entitled for screening in 1982 in view of fact that another person, similarly placed, was directed for such scrutiny by Tribunal's judgment dated 26.04.1993 passed in Original Application No. 466 of 1991.
4. In our view, firstly issue was already barred by Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. and secondly dispute of screening of 1982 could not have been raised in 1996 and it was apparently barred by limitation. Tribunal has observed that since applicant-respondent is claiming benefit of a judgment, therefore, limitation would not come in his way, but this view of Tribunal, in our view, is clearly erroneous.
5. In Rup Diamonds, M/s. Vs. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 674, Supreme Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches observing as under:
"There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided."
6. In State of Karnataka and others Vs. S.M. Kotrayaya and others 1996 (6) SCC 267, Supreme Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that it has been filed just after coming to know about relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.
7. Same view has been reiterated by Court in Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 1997 SC 2366, observing as under:
"Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had impetus from Veer Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratio... desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, had by them in various cadre... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well."
8. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others 2015 (1) SCC 347, Court considered in detail the question, "whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of Tribunal, which had attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court, whereas appellants in that case contend that respondents therein did not approach Court in time and were fence-sitters and, therefore, not entitled to get benefit of said judgment by approaching judicial forum belatedly", and finally drew the conclusion observing:
"Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefiturdi word "Udu" meaning in hindi of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim."
9. Thus, it is evident that a person cannot take benefit of judgment procured by a diligent person approaching the Court within time after the cause of action had arisen long back.
10. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that Original Application was not maintainable before Tribunal being barred by limitation. Tribunal, therefore, has committed manifest error in allowing the same by means of impugned judgment.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 11.01.2005 passed by Tribunal is hereby set aside and Original Application No. 496 of 1996 is hereby dismissed."
4. It is stated that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment of this Court.
5. For the reasons stated in aforesaid judgment and in the same terms this writ petition is allowed. Impugned award dated 09/10.10.2006 is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 AK