The High Court · 2025

The Labour Court - lll, Rep by its Presiding Officer Hyderabad Smt.Raiapathi, Wo: S.Kishan {ged about 58 years, Occ: Ex-Sweeper H.No.23-4-197lA, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad Also at C/o Q.Vilas, Advocate D.No. l-9-20/ /A/10, Rytham Restuqrant Lane Ramnagar, Hyderabad M/s. Nirmal Sanitation Services, H.Na23 4-4821 18, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad, Rep bi its Pioprietor Mr.tvl.Viiaya Kumar ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to sTAY all further Proceedings in E.P.No.4 ot 2022 in I.D.No.164 of 2009 on the file of Respondent No.1-Labour Court-lll, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal' Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. PANDU RANGA REDDY ..-"--7 Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M. VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I 3 t\ \ THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.96 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Vijaya Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. With the consent, fina1ly heard.

3. This intra court appeal takes exception to the order dated

20.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.10790 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as, 'the employer') against the award of the Labour Court - III, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Labour Court'), in I. D. No. 164 of 2009, dated 06.01.2016, was dismissed on the singular reason that the writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay of almost seven years. 4 . Learned corlnsel for the employer fairly submits that although the employer was put to notice by the Labour Court and its counsel entered appearance and filed written statement, the \ 2 employer \\'as not aware about the passing of the award on

06.0l.2016. l\s soon as the employer carne to know about it, he promptly irleil the writ petition, which could not have been dismissed on tlre ground of delay in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhopurt.

5. Learnecl counsel for respondent No.2/workman, on the other side, supporteri the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the au,aril was even published by way of a notification which is clear from r3.O.Rt.No.401, dated 20.05.2016 (Anreexure 4). Thus, no interi'erence may be made

6. The partics have confined their arguments to the extent indicated abov,: and no other point is pressed.

7. The learned Single Judge has recorded the finding in the impugned order as under:- "8. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that th,: impugned Award in I.D.No. 164 of 2009 was passed by respondent N Labour Court on 06.01.2016 an.d the etitioner Ira,s hled the present Writ Petition in the year 2023 i.e.. after a Ia se of almost seven for which delay, no cogent reasons zrr,: assigned. Thus, it clearly shows that the pelitioner o.l / r) rlrsez'; z scc sls I I t I i I I ! : I ^l :t- 3 was reluctant to challenge the impugned Award in a [imely manner. 9 a, As re ards delav in aooroachin s this Court. a Division ench of this Court, urde iudement dated 73.12.2027 in Writ Appeal No s.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, has categoricallY held the delav of 5 to 18 years rn preferring a Writ Petition under Artrcle 226 of the Cons titution of India, as inordinate delaY. 10. In the present case, since there is an inordinate delay of almost seven years on the part of the petitioner, for which, no valid or cogent reasons are issigned, this Court is not inclined to entertain ii-re present Writ Petition. As such, the present writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone " (EmPhasis SuPPlied) It is clear that the learned Single Judge relied on a Division 8. Bench judgment of this Court in W.A'Nos' 1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016 decided on 13.12.202 1, wherein the delay of hve years in filing the writ petition was held to be inordinate/enormous' g. So far the judgment on which the learned counsel for the employer has placed reliance is concerned, it shows that when there exist laches and negligence on the part of a party' delay is a relevant factor on the strength of which interference can be declined. In the instant case, the employer was admittedly put to notice by the Labour Court and it participated in the proceedings' Thereafter, 'due diligence' was expected from the employer about the stage and fate of the said I.D' Case No'164 of 2OO9' The t I \ l i I .t I I 4 l r) award was p'ublished as per Section lZ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 7947 . Ordinarily, upon such publication of A.ward in the gazette, a pre,sumption can be drawn that it came to 1.he notice of the employer.

10. In this u ew of the matter, in our view, the learned Single Judge has tahen a plausible view and rightly declined Lnterference because of delay and laches. 11 The u'rit a-ppeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/-B. SATYAVATHI GISTRAR OFFICER '1. The Rep by its; Labour Court - lll, Presiding Officer Hyderabad 2. One CC to {iri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to S ri IVI Vilaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to The GP for Labour, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

5. Two CD Cop,iers / To, TJ BS : I I I i l e' HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.96 ot 2025 1\\e S I-6 rl:. -) a) ? [ Hii\i 2[?5 z a i Og:c.5. .,- , j \.:---:: --:: :,,1.'z ' DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS g 4:A /25 i i I I I I ! 'I i ! I I