JUDGMENT Abdul Moin, J. Heard the petitioner, who appears in person, Shri. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri. Rakesh Bajpai as well as Shri. Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsels for the respondent no. 4. 2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally being decided. 3. Under challenge is the award dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in I.D. No. 83/2012 in re: Suresh Chandra Yadav v. The Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udaan Academy, Raebareli. 4. By the said award, learned Tribunal has recorded that as the workman/petitioner herein has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim statement neither any witness has been produced by him in court, as such there is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the management in its written statement and as such, has not granted any relief to the petitioner. 5. Contention of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Grade A under the respondent no.4/Academy when he raised an industrial dispute pertaining to his non-promotion on the post of Assistant Grade B and Assistant Grade C although time bound promotion policy was applicable in the Academy. 6. The said reference was registered as I.D. No. 83/2012. The Academy put in appearance before learned Tribunal and filed its written statement to which a rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner herein reiterating the pleas taken in the claim. 7. Certain preliminary objections were also raised by workman/petitioner herein pertaining to the competence of the authority who has filed the affidavits on behalf of the Academy before learned Tribunal. 8. A specific averment has been made in para 26 to the petition that during pendency of the aforesaid matter before learned Tribunal, the petitioner was removed by the Academy vide order dated 27.05.2014. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CAT") which set aside the removal order and the petitioner has been reinstated in service in March 2023. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CAT") which set aside the removal order and the petitioner has been reinstated in service in March 2023. 9. The contention is that as the petitioner was out of service since May 2014 till his reinstatement in March 2023, consequently on account of lack of financial resources he was unable to do proper pairvi of his case before the learned Tribunal or appear before the learned Tribunal with the result that he could not file affidavit nor could adduce any evidence or produce any witness in respect of his claim which has thus resulted in the learned Tribunal passing the award dated 15.12.2016 whereby his claim did not find favour with learned Tribunal and no relief has been granted to him. 10. The contention is that his non-appearance before learned Tribunal was on account of his financial condition which did not allow the petitioner to appear before learned Tribunal rather he was pursuing the challenge to his illegal order of removal by Academy before learned CAT and having been reinstated in service in March 2023 and his financial condition having improved that he has filed the instant petition before this Court raising a challenge to the award passed by learned Tribunal. 11. He further contends that he is willing to appear before learned Tribunal and would be filing affidavit in support of his claim and prays that learned Tribunal be directed to decide the said matter within a specified time. 12. However, the said prayer made by the petitioner has vehemently been opposed by Shri. Rakesh Bajpai as well as Shri. Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsels for the respondent no. 4 by contending that instant petition itself deserves to be dismissed having been filed with substantial delay challenging the award of learned Tribunal passed way back in December 2016 i.e. almost seven years. He also contended that as the petitioner failed to appear before learned Tribunal consequently it cannot be the case of the petitioner that as and when he chooses to appear before learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal may entertain and decide his claim on merits as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. 13. Learned counsels for the respondent no. 4 also argues that the award dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned Tribunal has also been published in the gazette. 13. Learned counsels for the respondent no. 4 also argues that the award dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned Tribunal has also been published in the gazette. 14. Heard the petitioner, who appears in person, Shri. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri. Rakesh Bajpai along with Shri. Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsels for the respondent no. 4 and perused the records. 15. From perusal of record, it emerges that the petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned Tribunal whereby the award has been passed by contending that workman/petitioner herein has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim neither any witness has been produced as such there is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the management in its written statement consequently declining any relief to the petitioner. 16. The reason as to why the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim statement as well as failed to produce any witness before learned Tribunal is largely indicated in the para 4 to the petition i.e. the petitioner having been removed from service by respondent no. 4/Academy in May 2014 and having only been reinstated in service subsequent to the order passed by CAT in March 2023. Though no averment to the effect that the petitioner having challenged the removal order before learned CAT has been indicated in the petition yet the petitioner who appears in person has verbally stated so to which Shri. Rakesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 also fairly agrees. 17. The petitioner has also indicated that on account on he being out of service since May 2014, his financial condition was not such that he could pursue his pending claim before learned Tribunal with the result that he could adduce any evidence nor produce any witness in support of his claim. 18. Considering the aforesaid, it emerges that the petitioner was unable to appear before learned Tribunal on account of his pecuniary/grave financial situation which had resulted on account of he having been removed from service by respondent no. 4 in May 2014. Later the petitioner has been reinstated in service in March 2023. 19. So far as the objection taken by learned counsels for the respondent no. 4 in May 2014. Later the petitioner has been reinstated in service in March 2023. 19. So far as the objection taken by learned counsels for the respondent no. 4 that petition is patently bad on account of laches, the said ground may not detain this Court inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner having been reinstated in service in March 2023 and being out of service since May 2014 has not been denied by the respondent. Thus, it can be said that on account of his financial situation, the petitioner could not approach this Court and thus, the said objection does not persuade this Court to dismiss the petition on ground of laches. 20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India allows the writ petition. The award dated 15.12.2016, Annexure No. 1 to the petition, is set aside. 21. Respondent no. 1/learned Tribunal is require to decide the matter afresh after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and/or produce any witness in support of his claim in accordance with law. 22. Learned Tribunal shall make endeavor to decide the matter in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.