APHC010096802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5639/2025 Between: G Adinarayana ...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation APSRTC and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondents No.2 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents to restore all deferred increments with arrears and treat the suspension period as on duty for all purposes and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. This writ petition is field challenging the award dated 09.02.2009, passed in I.D.No.21 of 2005. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the 1st respondent-Corporation on 01.02.1990. He was charged with misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxi) of the APSRTC Conduct Regulations, 1963, as during the search conducted by the Regional Enforcement Squad, he was found to have collected extra amount from the passengers than the ticket. After enquiry, the petitioner was removed from the service on 16.02.1991. Aggrieved by the said removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 3 26.08.1991. He further preferred review before the 2nd respondent and the same also ended in dismissal by an order dated 04.01.1993. Assailing the aforesaid orders, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute and the same was referred to the Tribunal by G.O.Rt.No.309 Labour Employment Training and Factories Department dated 02.02.2005. The Tribunal registered the same as I.D.No.21 of 2005 and the following question came to be framed: “…Whether the action of the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur, is justified in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the suspension period as not on duty on Sri G.Adinarayana, Conductor, E-404043, Dharmavaram?...” 5. The Tribunal, apart from merits of the matter, also considered the aspect of delay in raising the dispute. The relevant part of the Tribunal’s order, in this regard, read as follows: “…Further the final order was passed on 4-1-1993 against which the petitioner has agitated the matter in 2003. There is substantial delay of about a decade. For the said reason the records were not available with the Respondent nor the Petitioner could file a copy of the same. It is held in Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka vs. Shivalinga C.A.No.7028/2001 dt.5-10-2001 by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the delay of more than 9 years in approaching the labour officer is fatal as the word of employer would be relevant and coming in way of maintenance of the same. It is also held in S.A Rahiman s/o S.Mehaboob Saheb, E.No.77272, R/o.D.No.3.319, Nallaqutta Street, Kadiri, Anantpaur district vs. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur region, Anantapur and 2 Others W.P.No.9800/2008 dt.8-9-2008 that the delay of 5 years in preferring Writ Petition will come in the 4 way of granting the relief. It is held by Apex Court in Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam 2005 (11) 1153 that though there is no time limit prescribed for raising the 1.0 stale claims could not be entertained. Approaching the court late after a delay of more than 7 years the court is justified in refusing the relief. In these circumstances the reference is answered against the Petitioner and in favour of Respondent…” 6. Assailing the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders passed by the primary authority, 1st appellate authority and the reviewing authority, which have been confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal, suffers from severe infirmities, inasmuch as they have not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in a proper perspective. 8. This Court, while hearing the matter, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to address on delay inasmuch as the order in challenge was passed way back on 09.02.2009. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Paragraph No.15 of the affidavit, tried to justify that delay occurred in filing present writ petition was on account of petitioner’s efforts in trying to persuade respondents to restore his service and such efforts rendered futile. 5 10. This Court is not convinced with said explanation. Even the Tribunal, while dismissing Industrial Dispute case, has mainly found fault with the petitioner in appraising dispute after almost ten years and such long period was held to be unjustified, thereby the relief claimed was rejected. 11. Now, once again, the petitioner after almost sixteen years preferred present writ petition, without any explanation or justification. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, party approaching the Court should be more diligent in pursuing remedies and there is substantial delay in approaching Industrial Tribunal as well as this Court later, such inordinate delay cannot be condoned, even the present case has to be rejected on the count of laches. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the matter. 12. Accordingly the writ dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 06.03.2025 KBN 6 75 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5639/2025 Date: 06.03.2025 KBN