JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR , J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated03.05.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 135 of 1990 whereby the reference with respect to regularization/absorption of 62 workmen raised by the union has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for their regularization, who were working under the contractor in Kathara Washery of Central Coalfields Limited and to provide them or their legal heirs employment as similarly situated 174 workmen have already been provided employment by way of absorption. The petitioners have also prayed for directing the concerned respondents to pay them the wages equal to the other similarly situated 174 workmen, who had been provided employment vide award dated 01.01.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad in view of the joint compromise petition dated 04.03.1994 filed in Ref. No. 135/1990 jointly signed by the management of Kathara Washery and the representative of the workmen union. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 236 workmen including the petitioners had been working as slurry removal workers at different Slurry Pond Sections of Kathara Washery continuously since the year 1988, however, they were not regularized. They moved the authorities concerned demanding their regularization, which was not considered and hence the workmen-union raised industrial dispute before the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, which was referred by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad vide order dated 5.06.1990 exercising the power conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the following terms:- "Whether the action of the management of Kathara Washery of Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Kathara, Dist.-Giridih (now Bokaro) by not regularizing/departmentalising S/Shri Sahdeo Yadav and 235 others (as per list furnished by the union) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?" 3. The said matter was numbered as Ref. Case No. 135 of 1990 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad. 4. During pendency of the said proceeding i.e. Ref. If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?" 3. The said matter was numbered as Ref. Case No. 135 of 1990 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad. 4. During pendency of the said proceeding i.e. Ref. Case No. 135 of 1990, a joint compromise petition dated 04.03.1994 was filed jointly signed by the employer/management and the workmen/sponsoring union before the Presiding Officer of the learned Tribunal stating inter alia that the employer/management and the workmen/sponsoring union had mutually agreed to settle the dispute covered by the said reference. It was also mutually agreed that the management would provide employment by absorbing only 174 workmen in its service within a fortnight as piece rated workers for underground mining jobs and the wages payable to them would be regulated as per NCWA-IV depending upon the jobs in which they were engaged. So far as the rest 60 workmen including the petitioners were concerned, it was agreed that they would not be entitled to get employment/absorption under the said management and the sponsoring union had forgone their claim. Moreover, as regards two other workmen, namely, Ramnath Yadav (at Sl. No. 185) & Surendra (at Sl. No. 196), since they were engaged by the contractor after the date of reference i.e. 05.06.1990, their cases were decided to be discussed later on between the management and the sponsoring union. 5. As per the terms of the said joint settlement, an award dated 01.01.1997 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 135 of 1990 with respect to regularization of 174 workmen. It was mentioned in the said award that the dispute of the remaining 62 persons would continue in further proceeding and hence the dispute with respect to regularization of the remaining 62 workmen was pending before the learned Tribunal for adjudication. 6. Case No. 135 of 1990 with respect to regularization of 174 workmen. It was mentioned in the said award that the dispute of the remaining 62 persons would continue in further proceeding and hence the dispute with respect to regularization of the remaining 62 workmen was pending before the learned Tribunal for adjudication. 6. It is further submitted that the said reference case was heard on several dates since 1997 and finally, vide order dated 03.05.2010, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad rejected the claim of regularization of 62 workmen holding that after the award dated 01.01.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer of the learned Tribunal, the same was published in the Gazette of India Part-II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) dated 08.02.1997 and hence there was no scope to deicide the reference again with respect to 62 persons separately as the dispute was already settled between the union and the management. 7. It is also submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 03.05.2010, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad failed to consider that the dispute with respect to the remaining 62 concerned workmen was still existing and thus it was his statutory duty to pass the final award by deciding the dispute on merit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that so far as pendency of the dispute with respect to regularization of the remaining 62 persons is concerned, the order dated 01.01.1997 was never challenged by the management, rather they worked on that basis and regularly appeared in the proceeding. Hence, it was the statutory duty of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad to pass the final award by adjudicating the dispute of regularization of the remaining 62 workmen. However, in place of adjudicating the dispute, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad rejected the case of the concerned 62 workmen on extraneous ground after holding that the reference was decided by his predecessor vide award dated 01.01.1997, which was published in the Gazette of India Part-II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) on 08.02.1997 and hence there was no scope to again decide the reference of 62 persons separately as the dispute was already settled with mutual agreement by the union and the management. 9. 9. It is also urged that after the order dated 01.01 1997, a petition on behalf of the remaining 62 workmen was filed before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad stating inter alia that they should have been regularized and the union had got no concern to leave them and only due to the inaction on the part of the union, their regularization/absorption was affected. However, no decision was taken on the said petition, which has seriously prejudiced them. 10. It is further submitted that all the petitioners had worked for the management through the contactor for which they were paid wages by the management through the contactor at par with the other regularized 174 workmen and their names were also mentioned in the register of the concerned contractor. Since all the petitioners performed the work of slurry removal at different Slurry Sections of Kathara Washery, they were issued identity cards. However, their cases were arbitrarily left out by the management alleging that their names were not mentioned in the register of the contractor. Under the said circumstance, it was a fit case to be decided on merit. 11. It is also submitted that the petitioners continuously approached the concerned respondents by filing several representations, however, no action was taken by them. The petitioners also filed an application before the Vigilance Department, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi on 27.09.2023 for making proper enquiry against appointment of several persons, however, the Vigilance Department also did not take any action in this regard. 12. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the union and the management, an award was passed on 01.01.1997, which was published in the Gazette of India on 08.02.1997 pursuant to which 174 workmen were already regularized and hence the petitioners cannot claim for reopening the matter. It is further submitted that the petitioners are disputing the said award after a huge delay and as such the same may not be entertained by this Court. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. It is further submitted that the petitioners are disputing the said award after a huge delay and as such the same may not be entertained by this Court. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the award dated 01.01.1997 was passed only with respect to 174 workmen and so far as dispute regarding regularization/absorption of 62 workmen including the petitioners were concerned, it was stated in the said award that the proceeding would continue and as such the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad had wrongly observed in the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 that after passing the award, which was published by the Government of India, there was no scope to again decide the reference of 62 persons separately as the dispute was already settled by the management and the union. It is further claimed that the petitioners being similarly situated workmen are also entitled to get the same benefit as was given to 174 workmen in terms with the award dated 01.01.1997. 14. Even if the said claim of the petitioners is accepted, the present writ petition has been preferred after 15 years of passing the impugned order dated03.05.2010 without explaining any cogent reason for such an inordinate delay. 15. In the case of University of Delhi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 745 , it has been held that condonation of long delay should not be automatic as the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. While considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough, rather it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. 16. In the case of Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay and laches is one of the factors that requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the case of Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay and laches is one of the factors that requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers, if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his rights taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances. Filing of representations would not be adequate explanation to justify the delay. 17. In the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 566 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretionary power, does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 18. It is thus well settled that delay and laches is one of the factors to decline exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his rights. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that the present case has been preferred after an inordinate delay i.e. 15 years of passing the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 that too, without giving any cogent explanation for the same. As such there is no reason to exercise discretionary jurisdiction so as to grant any relief to the petitioners. 20. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.