HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 105/2020 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16773/2019 1. Rajendra Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, (Since Deceased) Through Lrs 1/1. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar Naruka Wife Of Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 411, Narayan Dham Residency, Lane No. 13, Rani Sati Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 1/2. Vandana Rathore Daughter Of Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 411, Narayan Dham Residency, Lane No. 13, Rani Sati Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 1/3. Ravi Pratap Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 411, Narayan Dham Residency, Lane No. 13, Rani Sati Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus 1. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The General Manager (Traffic), Jaipur Zone-A, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vaishali Nagar Depot, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Paliwal, Adv. for Mr. R.A. Katta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/05/2025 (2 of 4) [SAW-105/2020] This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay of four years in challenging the award dated 24.09.2019. Counsel further submits that there is no limitation period prescribed for challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court. We have perused the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court wherein it has been observed as under:- “I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. This Court finds that the Labour Court had passed the award on 19th October, 2015 and the present writ petition has been preferred on 24th September, 2019. This Court is conscious of the fact that the limitation has not been prescribed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, however, filing of the writ petition by the petitioner after a delay of more than 4 years is relevant consideration for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction. This Court finds that if the petitioner was feeling aggrieved against the award dt. 19th October, 2015, he ought to have filed the petition within a reasonable time. The filing of writ petition after a delay of 4 years suffers from laches and delay and as such this Court will not like to entertain the petition which is filed after a delay of 4 years from the date of award. Counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that petitioner in fact has suffered disability in his both legs and as such he was prevented from filing the petition, this Court finds that said fact has not been mentioned in the writ petition and as such this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner by permitting him to file the petition at such a belated stage. (3 of 4) [SAW-105/2020] This Court finds that the Labour Court while passing the award has taken into account the various documents, which were placed on record by way of evidence. The Labour Court has observed that the petitioner, who was said to be injured restrained himself from joining the duty, however, he did not produce any evidence to the effect that he had suffered injuries on account of accident by falling from the motorcycle. The Labour Court also recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to produce any certificate of Alopathy Doctor, the prescription prescribed by any Doctor and any other medical treatment, which was done for adjudging the reason of not reporting on duty. This Court also finds that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was absent since 25th May, 1997 till the date of termination of his services. The long absence of the petitioner from service and filing of appeal by the petitioner in the year 2004 against termination order of 1998, has not been explained by him. This Court finds that the Labour Court after considering the entire evidence of termination of his services, has come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner in respect of remaining absent from duty, in willful manner, was duly proved and as such this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.” Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appellant had belatedly filed the departmental appeal in the year 2004 against his termination order which was passed way back in the year 1998 and in our considered view, the appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing the departmental appeal. We have also considered the fact that the appellant has failed to explain the delay of four years in challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court before the learned Single Judge. (4 of 4) [SAW-105/2020] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Jyoti/75