Laches and gross delay in challenging an industrial award preclude discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227.

The Workman (Respondent No. 1) was employed as a watchman by the Petitioner from June 1, 1999, until his alleged illegal termination on July 24, 2004

The Petitioner operated as a contractor for the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 2)

When the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Vadodara, the Petitioner failed to file a written statement despite being served and did not remain present for cross-examination, leading to its evidence being discarded

On November 24, 2016, the Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement with 30% back-wages

The Petitioner did not comply, leading to the Labour Court issuing recovery orders and a Recovery Certificate in 2022 and 2026 for approximately ₹5,06,389/-

The Petitioner challenged the original 2016 award and subsequent recovery orders via this writ petition in 2026

1. Whether the findings of the Labour Court regarding illegal termination and the grant of reinstatement with 30% back-wages were perverse or required interference under writ jurisdiction

2. Whether the petition should be entertained in light of the gross delay and laches in challenging the 2016 award

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the High Court's supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the settled legal doctrine that writ courts cannot act as courts of appeal to re-appreciate or re-assess evidence unless the lower court’s findings are perverse or illegal

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of "Laches," which dictates that discretionary relief under Article 226 cannot be granted to a petitioner who has sat on their rights for an unreasonable period (in this case, 10 years)

The court also noted the statutory requirements for terminal benefits and procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The Court observed that the Petitioner remained "in slumber" for ten years following the 2016 award, only approaching the High Court once a Recovery Certificate was issued

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner had ample opportunity to contest the Reference proceedings but failed to file a written statement or submit to cross-examination, rendering the Labour Court's findings on the Workman's 240 days of continuous service and subsequent illegal termination factually unchallenged

The Court held that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence regarding the Workman's unemployment or the contractor's financial constraints at the writ stage

Since the Labour Court’s findings were based on the evidence available and were not found to be perverse, the High Court determined there was no jurisdictional error justifying interference

The Court affirmed the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with 30% back-wages and the subsequent recovery orders. The Petitioner was directed to comply with the award and pay the specified amounts within a period of four weeks from the date of the order