JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this Writ Petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., in application No.27 of 2012, titled as Prithvi Singh (Ram) Versus The Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd., Division, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P., decided on 05.11.2015, vide which a Claim Petition filed by him under the Industrial Disputes Act for reinstatement in service with all benefits, stands dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that petitioner herein approached the learned Court below with the grievance that he was engaged as a daily waged beldar/ T-mate in the year 1986 and worked as such upto October, 1991, thus completing 240 days in each calendar year, yet his service were retrenched in October, 1991 without complying with the statutory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also the grievance of the petitioner that after his arbitrary termination many new hands were engaged by the respondent, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. A demand notice was served upon the respondent by the petitioner on 16.12.2011 and a copy of the same was also endorsed to the Labour-cumConciliation Officer. However, as the matter was not referred to the Court within a period of 45 days, hence, petitioner himself filed application before the learned Court below, seeking relief already referred to hereinabove. 3. The application was contested by respondent therein inter alia, on the ground that there was delay on the part of the workman in approaching the learned Court and that there also was suppression of material facts. As per respondent/ employer, petitioner had worked only for 211 days in between 16.12.1986 to 15.01.1998 and had not worked till the year 1991 and had never completed 240 days in a calender year. It was further case of the employer that petitioner had left the job of his own free will, hence, the department was not to comply with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the retrenchment of the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP. 3. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the retrenchment of the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP. 3. Whether this petition is time barred as alleged? OPR. 4. Relief". 5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No.1 No. Issue No.2 Not entitled to any relief. Issue No.3 Decided accordingly. Relief Application dismissed, per operative part of order". 6. The Claim Petition of the workman was thus dismissed by learned Court below inter alia, on the ground that petitioner had raised the industrial dispute after a lapse of 23 years and had remained silent during this period without any plausible explanation and also that record demonstrated that he himself had abandoned the job. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order so passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the Court was bound to have had returned its findings on merit and ordered reinstatement of petitioner as it stood proved on record that services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act and there were subsequent violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as after his illegal retrenchment, many fresh hands were engaged by the respondent, ignoring the petitioner. He has further argued that it is settled law that because retrenchment is a continuous cause of action, therefore, there is no limitation within which a workman is to approach the Court of Law for redressal of his grievance. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Board has argued that there was no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Court below and as there was no explanation qua delay of two decades in filing of the Claim Petition by the workman, the same was rightly dismissed by the learned Court below on the ground of delay and latches. He further argued that workman had voluntarily left the job which is evident from the fact that it took him two decades to approach to the Court of Law because if his services would have had been illegally terminated by the Board, he would have approached the Court at the earliest. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, there is no merit in the present petition. Though there is a dispute between the workman and the employer as to whether services of the petitioner came to an end in the year 1988 or 1991, however, assuming that services of the petitioner were put to an end in the year 1991, yet there is no plausible explanation on the part of petitioner as to why a demand notice was served by him upon the employer only on 16.12.2011 i.e. after two decades since he ceased to serve the Respondent Board. Though an attempt was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that the reason as to why he did not raise any demand notice or he did not approach any Court of Law during the said two decades was that he was continuously meeting the employer and he was being assured by the employer that he will be reengaged sooner and later, however, there is no material on record from which this fact can be substantiated. It is also evident that workman did not approach the learned Court below with clean hands. He incorrectly made out a case that his services were illegally retrenched in October, 1991, whereas in the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that he had worked with the Respondent Board from the year 1986 only up till the year 1988. 10. It is settled law that before a party calls upon the Court of Law to adjudicate its lis on merit, it has to satisfy the Court on the point of maintainability of the lis. Even if, there is no period of limitation within which an industrial dispute has to be raised by a workman, but this does not mean that the workman can continue to sleep over his rights for decades together and thereafter, one fine day, he can wake up and approach the Court without explaining delay, on the ground that there is no limitation prescribed in law to approach the Court. 11. 11. Where the principle of limitation does not governs as to within what period a litigant has to knock the doors of justice for redressal of his or her grievance, the settled principle is of delays and laches. Even as far as the principle of delays and laches is concerned, in such like situations, settled law is that maximum time which the Court can presume to be a reasonable time for a litigant to approach the Court is of about three years. Here the petitioner chose to raise the industrial dispute after two decades. 12. As already mentioned above, there is no explanation worth its name as to why the claim was filed by workman before the learned Court below after two decades. The only conclusion which can be arrived at by this Court is that there is force in the contention of the Respondent Board that petitioner voluntarily abandoned the job and filing of the Claim Petition after two decades was nothing, but an attempt to indulge in a litigation in which the workman had nothing to loose. Learned Court below has rightly held that the factum of workman remaining silent for more than 23 years without plausible explanation clearly demonstrated that he himself had abandoned his job and the case would not fall within the definition of retrenchment. 13. In view of the discussion held hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition and further as this Court does not finds any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below, this petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.