2006 (4) TMI 494 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the view of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to appoint respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the workman ) in an appropriate vacancy in terms of Clause 4 of the Settlement dated 29.1.1979 valid?

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality of judgment directing appointment in accordance with Settlement Clause 4; Delay and laches in approaching the court for relief; Equitable considerations in exercising discretionary powers under Article 226; Applicability of Settlement Clause in a writ petition.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to a judgment directing the appointment of a worker based on a Settlement Clause. The respondent, a workman, had remained silent for nearly two decades before seeking employment. The appellant argued that the delay in approaching the court and the lack of evidence regarding earlier representations should bar the relief sought. The court emphasized the importance of delay and laches in equitable considerations under Article 226, citing precedents to support the argument that unexplained delays may lead to a refusal of relief.

The court highlighted the significance of delay in seeking remedies, stating that mere representations without a reasonable explanation for the delay may not suffice. The judgment referenced various cases to support the principle that unreasonable delays in seeking relief through writ petitions may lead to a denial of such remedies. The court reiterated that repeated representations do not justify delays and that the creation of third-party rights during the delay could impact the decision to grant relief.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicability of the Settlement Clause to the workman could not be determined through a writ petition. The court emphasized that a writ petition might not be the appropriate remedy in such cases, as observed in previous judgments. Ultimately, the court concluded that the workman was not entitled to any relief, setting aside the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench.

In conclusion, the appeal challenging the judgment was allowed, with no order as to costs. The detailed analysis focused on the significance of delay and laches in seeking legal remedies, the equitable considerations in exercising discretionary powers under Article 226, and the limitations of addressing settlement clauses in writ petitions.