Writ petition challenging wage deductions dismissed due to thirteen-year delay and existence of disputed factual questions.

The 21 writ petitioners were engaged as Pro-rata Casual Labourers on a daily wage basis in various departments of North Eastern Hill University (NEHU).

They sought quashing of a letter dated 20.04.2011, under which wages for March 2011 were payable only on an actual-days-worked basis, without the additional payment of 1/6th day.

The petitioners contended that they were re-engaged for 89 days instead of the customary 90 days, that their service was continuous without break, and that the resulting wage deduction was arbitrary.

The respondents countered that the letter dated 20.04.2011 stood replaced by an order dated 15.06.2011, which granted casual labourers working a five-day week additional wages of 1/6th of the total days actually worked, effective March 2011.

The respondents further demonstrated contradictions in the attendance registers produced by Petitioners No. 2 and 3 — the former had signed on all seven days of the week while the latter had never signed on Saturdays and Sundays — giving rise to disputed questions of fact.

The writ petition was filed in 2023, i.e., approximately 13 years after the cause of action arose in 2011.

The Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction, under which belated petitions are liable to be dismissed even where substantive questions may exist, relying on WG CDR A.U. Tayyaba (Retired) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 5 SCC 688, and Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1307.

The Court also invoked the settled principle that a writ court cannot adjudicate serious disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence.

Procedural propriety requires that a substantive fresh order must be specifically impugned in the pleadings; a challenge raised only through a rejoinder affidavit is impermissible.

The Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches as a threshold bar without entering into the merits. It noted that the impugned letter dated 20.04.2011 was issued more than 13 years before the filing of the petition.

The subsequent order dated 15.06.2011 — which was vital to the issue since it had materially replaced the impugned letter — had never been challenged upon issuance and was sought to be assailed only via the rejoinder affidavit, which the Court held "clearly indicates severe laches on the part of the petitioners".

Applying the principle against adjudication of disputed facts in writ jurisdiction, the Court observed that the attendance sheets were evidentiary in nature and, given their internal contradictions, made adjudication impossible in a writ proceeding.

Consciously avoiding engagement with the substantive authorities cited by both sides, the Court concluded that the delay barred relief regardless of any larger questions that "may remain".

Accordingly, the writ petition "stands dismissed and is accordingly disposed of" on the ground of delay and laches, without any adjudication on the merits of the wage deduction claim and without granting any relief to the petitioners.