2025:HHC:26539 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 9976 of 2023 Decided on : 06.08.2025 Sh. Satpal and others. …Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned award dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside and further claim of the petitioner for reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits including seniority and continuity of service with full back wages may kindly be allowed.” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:26539 2. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the Award dated 31.07.2018, passed by the learned Labour Court. This writ petition has been filed on 20.10.2023 i.e. more than five years as from the date of passing of the impugned Award. 3. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how do the petitioners justify the delay in approaching the Court after more than five years, he has drawn the attention of the Court to Paragraph No.12 of the writ petition and submitted that on these counts the petitioners were not able to file the writ petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the averments made in Paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons mentioned herein are not cogent enough so as to condone a delay of more than five years in filing the writ petition. In fact, a perusal of the reasons mentioned in the petition demonstrate that the petitioners have justified the delay on the count that they were earlier also pursuing multifarious litigations in various Courts and, thus, could not assail the Award dated 31.07.2018, on account of paucity of funds etc. 3 2025:HHC:26539 These bald averments cannot be accepted. Nothing prevented the petitioners from approaching the Court within some reasonable time and petitioners could have easily availed Legal Aid, had they applied for it, provided they were fulfilling the criteria. 5. Be that as it may, as the Court is not satisfied that more than five years delay in approaching the Court against the Award dated 31.07.2018, passed by the learned Labour Court, is justifiable in the eyes of law, the petition is dismissed on account of delays and laches. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 06, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)