- (1.) Through the instant petition, the petitioner-department has laid challenge to the award made way back on 20.8.2003 by respondent No. 2. By virtue of the impugned award, the Labour Court ordered re-instatement of respondent No. 1 on the post held by him with its continuity and 50% back wages.
(2.) We have heard learned Additional Advocate General at length and have also gone through the paper book as also the impugned award.
(3.) It is evident from record that through the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the award made way back on August 20, 2003 after a lapse of more than 3 years, that too without any explanation much less convincing one. In absence thereof, the petitioner cannot and should not be permitted to challenge the impugned award after a lapse of more than 3 years, as per its own whims and wishes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1975 2 SCR 356 has clearly held that an aggrieved party has to move the Court within a period of six months or at best within one year of the date when cause of action accrued. The Supreme Court has observed as follows: It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Articles 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. In Sadasivaswamy's case (supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2005 2 SLR 587.;