[2025:RJ-JP:13554] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18529/2016 Malsingh son of Shri Ganpatsingh, R/o Plot No. 10, Alkapuri, Charan Nadi, Benar Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. M/s. K.E.C. International Limited through Chief Manager, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.P. Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/03/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 03.11.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in IT Case No.44/1988 by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner against his termination order dated 20.04.1987 has been rejected. 2. The contents of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Helper on 12.04.1977 and his services were discontinued on 20.04.1987 against which the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, wherein, it has been alleged that he was removed from service while the other persons were retained in service, hence violating the provisions contained under Sections 25F, 25G, 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’) his termination order was passed. [2025:RJ-JP:13554] (2 of 3) [CW-18529/2016] 3. During pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the case of the respondent was that the petitioner-workman was not removed from service rather he himself abandoned his service and did not return back to work. 4. During pendency of the aforesaid claim petition, an order was passed on 02.11.1991, where the respondent expressed his desire to take the petitioner back in service and the petitioner joined the service on 03.11.1991, thereafter, the petitioner remained in service, till the date of his retirement in the year 2013. 5. The Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was provided temporary work for a short duration and he has not worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year. Further, the petitioner has himself abandoned the services and has stopped working. 6. The aforesaid award was passed by the Tribunal wayback in the year 2000 and the petitioner kept silence for a period of more than 16 years and without disclosing the reasons for such delay, he woke up and approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 7. It is the settled proposition of law, that the Court will not come to rescue a person who is sleeping over his rights. In the instant case also, the petitioner was slept over the matter for more than one and half decade and without giving plausible explanation, he has approached this Court, hence, under these circumstances, the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches alone. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands [2025:RJ-JP:13554] (3 of 3) [CW-18529/2016] dismissed. 8. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /75