Gross Delay and Laches Preclude Article 226/227 Challenge Against Labour Court Award and Recovery Proceedings

The respondent-workman was employed as a watchman by the petitioner (a contractor) from June 1, 1999. His services were terminated on July 24, 2004, allegedly without following the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The petitioner failed to file a written statement or submit to cross-examination during the Reference (LCV) Case No. 624 of 2004

On November 24, 2016, the Labour Court, Vadodara, declared the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with 30% back-wages

Following non-compliance, the workman obtained orders in Recovery (C-2) and Recovery (C-1) applications in 2022 and 2026 respectively

The petitioner challenged the original 2016 award and subsequent recovery orders via this writ petition in 2026, citing financial constraints and the end of the labor contract with the principal employer as reasons for the delay

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside a decade-old award and subsequent recovery orders despite gross delay and laches

2. Whether the Labour Court’s findings regarding illegal termination and the grant of 30% back-wages were perverse or lacked evidentiary support

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which define the High Court's power of judicial review and superintendence.

discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction cannot be granted when there is gross delay/laches

under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate or reassess evidence unless the lower court's findings are shown to be perverse or illegal

The procedural requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the completion of 240 days of service were also foundational to the underlying award

The Court observed that the petitioner "woke up from the slumber" only after the issuance of a Recovery Certificate in 2026, nearly ten years after the original award of 2016

The petitioner had ample opportunity to contest the Reference but failed to file a written statement or complete the cross-examination of its witness, leading to the evidence being discarded

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s absence of action for a decade constitutes gross delay, precluding interference under Articles 226 and 227

On merits, the Court found that the Labour Court’s conclusion—that the workman had completed 240 days of service and was illegally terminated—was based on the evidence presented (or unchallenged). Therefore, in the absence of perversity, the High Court declined to re-evaluate the factual merits of the termination or the calculation of back-wages

The Court refused to interfere with the 2016 award or the subsequent recovery orders. The petitioner was directed to comply with the award of the Labour Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order