### Delay, Lack of Evidence, and Improper Forum Bar Relief for Alleged Industrial Disputes Under Article 226

The petitioner claimed he was engaged as a worker in 2007 and his services were verbally terminated in 2011.

He approached the High Court in 2016 seeking a writ of mandamus for reinstatement with back wages, alleging that similarly situated persons were re-engaged in 2014 and that his termination violated the Industrial Disputes Act.

The respondents contended that the petitioner was a casual paid laborer engaged only from May 2009 to August 2009 due to work availability.

At the time of the hearing in 2026, the petitioner was approximately 63 years old.

Notably, the petitioner failed to append any documentary evidence or annexures to support his claims of service timeline or discriminatory treatment.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act and the significant delay in filing.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement given the lack of evidence and the fact that he has crossed the age of superannuation.

The court applied the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy for agitating violations of the Industrial Disputes Act, as that Statute provides a specific substantive and procedural framework for such grievances.

The court applied the doctrine of "delay and laches," noting that stale claims and highly belated approaches to the court diminish the efficacy of the requested relief.

Factually, the petitioner provided no documentary evidence (annexures) to substantiate his claim of being engaged in 2007 or terminated in 2011, making his allegations "bald averments".

Legally, even if the petitioner's timeline were accepted, he approached the Court in 2016 for a 2011 cause of action, which was deemed a "belated approach".

The Court reasoned that industrial disputes must be settled through the specialized machinery provided by the Industrial Disputes Act rather than through a writ of mandamus.

The Court observed that the petition had lost its "efficacy" because the petitioner was now 63 years old, effectively rendering the plea for reinstatement moot.

The Court dismissed the petition and held that because the petitioner had exceeded the typical age of service (63 years), no relief of reinstatement could be granted.