Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY the order dated 22.10.2009 this Court dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2361/1997 (State of Rajasthan Vs. The Judge, Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur & Anr.) being abated. To recall the order aforesaid this misc. application is preferred. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appropriate government by a notification dated 3.9.1993 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that "Whether the termination of workman Shri Gaina Ram S/o. Shri Nar Singh [represented by the President, District Coordination Committee, Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress (INTUC)] w.e.f. 31.12.1990 by the Ranger, Department of Forest, Desuri, District Pali and the District Forest Officer, Pali is just and valid ? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled ?
(2.) AS per the statement of claim submitted by the workman, he was employed as Casual Labourer in the Department of Forest in the month of August, 1983. He served the employer satisfactorily for a period of more than seven years but on 31.12.1990 he was terminated from service without assigning any reason. As per the workman, his termination from service was retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947') and that was affected without adhering the mandatory condition precedents to do so as prescribed under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. The learned Labour Court after recording evidence of rival parties and considering the arguments advanced arrived at the conclusion that the applicant was a workman with an industry and his termination was nothing but retrenchment. The retrenchment was effected in non -compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. While declaring the retrenchment illegal, the learned Court awarded re -instatement to the workman in service with 25% of the total back wages. The award passed by the Labour Court came to be published by the appropriate government as per provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1947. To challenge the award, the employer preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2361/1997 before this Court. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent workman died on 17.6.2001. The fact about the death of workman Gaina Ram, as per the applicant, came in knowledge of the employer in the year 2007. Necessary information in this regard was sent to the Government Advocate by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali by a communication dated 27.4.2007 (Annex. A/2), however, no steps were taken to substitute the respondent workman in the writ proceedings by his legal heir/representatives. The Court looking to this fact dismissed the petition for writ on 22.10.2009. To recall the order dated 22.10.2009 the instant application was filed on 2.9.2011. It is stated in the application that the delay caused in brining the legal heir/representative of the workman Shri Gaina Ram on record was un -intentional and bonafide, therefore, the order dismissing the petition for writ deserves to be recalled. I have considered the averments contained in the application and also the submissions made.
(3.) THE petition for writ was dismissed on 22.10.2009 on the count that no steps were taken by the petitioner to bring legal heir/representative of the respondent workman on record. The application to recall the order dated 22.10.2009 was filed after a lapse of about one year and 11 months. No explanation is given in the application for causing such a huge delay in moving the application. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the employer was having knowledge about the death of the respondent workman prior to April, 2007. NO steps at all were taken to substitute the respondent Shri Gaina Ram by his legal heir/representative for good two years and six months. Looking to these circumstances the Court dismissed the petition for writ. It is well settled that a person invoking writ jurisdiction should be diligent enough to pursue the petition for writ. A stale matter cannot be agitated without having sufficient cause to do so. While pursuing the proceedings also the question of delay in bringing the legal representatives on record is required to be examined by keeping in mind the concept of delay and latches. In the instant matter, the petitioner was not at all diligent to bring legal representative of the respondent workman on record, hence, I do not find any reason to recall the order dated 22.10.2009. It is further pertinent to mention that the workman was pursuing his case since 1990 and now we are in 2014. The writ proceedings cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period due to inaction on the part of the person who is claiming a writ. For the reasons given above, the application is dismissed.;