2025:HHC:13902-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 259 of 2017 Decided on : 14.05.2025 Sh. Rajinder Singh. …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation and another. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an Award passed by learned Labour Court, dated 25.11.2005. 2. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the appropriate Government made a Reference to the learned Labour Court i.e. Reference No. 80 of 1999, which was answered by the learned Labour Court in terms of Annexure P- 2, on 25.11.2005. The Reference was answered against the petitioner and one Shri Mohinder Singh. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:13902-DB 3. Though the Award was passed by the learned Labour Court in the year 2005, the petitioner assailed the same by way of a writ petition, in the month of August, 2016. There is no cogent explanation given in the writ petition as to why the writ was filed after 10 years, as from the date of the pronouncement of the Award by the learned Labour Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a layman and is not aware about the niceties of law, therefore, he could not approach the Court within some reasonable time. 5. This Court is of the considered view that that Award in issue ought to have been assailed by the petitioner within some reasonable time. Though the Law of Limitation is not applicable in writ petitions but generally the principles laid down in the Limitation Act are followed and as finality has to be there qua the orders, judgments and Awards, a party cannot be allowed to assail the same at its leisure belatedly until and unless the party is able to convince the Court that there were reasons beyond the control of the party, which prevented it from approaching the Court. Herein, no such reason could be 3 2025:HHC:13902-DB espoused before the Court by the petitioner. 6. Even on merits, this Court does not intends to interfere with the Award passed by the learned Labour Court for the reason that it is a well reasoned Award and the learned Labour Court has explained in detail as to why the Reference was to be answered against the workmen. During the course of the arguments, it could not be demonstrated that the petitioner, in fact, was engaged for watch and ward of the sick unit, by way of a contract on co-terminus basis and subsequent engagement was only with regard to another sick unit and it continued till the sale of said unit. Further, the petitioner was satisfied with the Award for more than a decade. 7. Be that as it may, as the Court has already observed hereinabove that there is no justification in the petitioner approaching this Court against the Award after a decade, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 14, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)