JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Award dated 17.09.2010 passed by Labour Court, Khandwa in Reference Case No. 44/2009 I.D. Act. 3. The reference at the instance of respondent-workman was: 4. The above reference was in the wake of the fact that the respondent-workman employed as Gangman with the petitioner's establishment was retired on her completion of 30 years of service, much before completion of age of retirement of Gangman. 5. The Labour Court on a finding that respondent-workman was Gangman and had entitlement to serve till age of 60 years has answered reference in her favour and against the petitioner and directed her reinstatement with backwages by Award dated 17.09.2010. 6. Challenge to the Award is after a period of four years on the ground that Labour Court committed grave error of law in ignoring the law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . It is also submitted that the Labour Court grossly erred in entertaining the petition against the department as the department cannot be said to be an industry under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, the said submission is not carried forward and given up in view of the law laid down in the case of Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 . 7. In respect of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that Labour Court ignored the law laid down in the case of Umadevi (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that reliance placed on the said judgment is miscued because the case of Umadevi extensively dwell upon with the matters of such daily wagers seeking regularization in the service who were appointed through procedure unknown to law. 8. Whereas, in the case at hand the issue as to whether a Gangman in Public Works Department could be retired before completion of age of superannuation is answered by Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya v. State of M.P., (2006) 2 MPHT 374 wherein it is held: "12. 8. Whereas, in the case at hand the issue as to whether a Gangman in Public Works Department could be retired before completion of age of superannuation is answered by Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya v. State of M.P., (2006) 2 MPHT 374 wherein it is held: "12. It is true that gangman is not included in the schedule of 1976 Rules but from perusal of the schedule attached to 1977 Rules it is clear that the post of gangman is included in the schedule of the said Rules. In such circumstances Rules of 1977 and 1976 will have to be read together. After reading both the Rules together it becomes clear that a gangman is fully governed by the said Rules. Non-mentioning of the post of 'Gangman' in the Schedule to the 1976 Rules is a mere omission in amending the Rules after coming into force of "1977 Rules". As per Rule 8 of the 1976 Rules a Gangman shall be governed by the same policy for superannuation as is applicable to the Class IV Government employees because they are in comparable category. The said Rules reads as under:-- "8. Age, Physical fitness of new entrants and age of superannuation. - In the matter of age, and physical fitness for recruitment and superannuation, the same rules and policies shall apply to the new entrants into the service as are applicable to the Government servants of comparable categories in the regular employment." 13. While deciding the Gulabsingh's case (supra), the 1977 Rules and Pension Rules of 1979 were not brought to the notice of the Court. Under Rule 6 of 1976 Rules the employees who were in service for at least fifteen years on 1-1-1974 were eligible for the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid employees. This has been made more liberal by the 1979 Rules. Rule 2 (c) of the 1979 Rules lays down that a contingency paid employee or a work-charge employee becomes permanent employee whenever he completes fifteen years of his service though it may be after 1-1-1974. 14. It is well known principle of law that when two different Rules contain different provisions the one which is more beneficial to the employees has to be accepted in the welfare state. 14. It is well known principle of law that when two different Rules contain different provisions the one which is more beneficial to the employees has to be accepted in the welfare state. Considering this fact we find that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bharosi (supra) and Bhajanlal (supra) lay down the correct law while the law laid down by the Gulabsingh (supra) is not correct as the view taken in the said case was taken without considering the 1977 Rules and 1979 Rules. In such circumstances we hold that the services of gangmen are governed by the Rules applicable to work charged and contingency paid employees even though the gangman is not included in the schedule of 1976 Rules and the age of superannuation is 62 years as other Class IV employees of the State Government because they are in comparable category." 9. The impugned Award when tested on the anvil of the decision by Full Bench in Vishnu Mutiya (supra) does not warrant any interference. 10. Even otherwise challenge put forth after a period of four years is hit by laches. 11. Trite it is that delay and laches which lead to crystallization of right in favour of a person, disentitles the other to seek remedy in the Court of Law. Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. (M/s) v. Government of India, (DB), I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53; relying upon judgments of the Apex Court observed - "10. Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it to any relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1365 the Supreme Court has held that delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the Supreme Court has observed that discretionary relief can be provided to one who has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana v. Aravali Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held that where third party rights are created, the High Court should not interfere. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana v. Aravali Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held that where third party rights are created, the High Court should not interfere. Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it has been held that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of state claims where the right of third parties crystallizes in the interregnum." 12. It has been observed by their Lordships in Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal, (2014) 2 SCC 788 - "38. ...The Acts of Limitation fundamentally are principles relating to "repose" or of "peace". In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 28, Para 605 it has been stated thus:-- "605. Policy of the Limitation Acts. - The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence." 39. ...The fundamental policy behind limitation is that if a person does not pursue his remedy within the specified time frame, the right to sue gets extinguished...." 13. Having thus considered this Court does not find merit in the challenge. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no costs.