' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for a declaration that he be treated on duty from 12-11-1968 to 8-7-1972.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was serving as a Cleaner in the Railway. He absented from his duty on 5-11-1968. It is alleged that the petitioner reported for duty on 7-11-1968 but he was not allowed to assume duty on the pretext that he should produce a fitness certificate. The petitioner failed to comply with the direction. The matter remained pending at various levels and ultimately it was decided to reappoint the petitioner w,e,f, 8-7-1972. The petitioner accepted the reappointment and joined duty. Thereafter he filed a petition under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for declaration that he be considered in service. The application was resisted by the Railways and Punjab Labour Court (Northern Zone Lahore) dismissed the same on 26-4-1973 for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition on 8-4-1974. The same was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents but no body has appeared on their behalf, therefore, they are proceeded ex parte.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that in spite of the fact that the petitioner reported for duty he was not allowed to resume duty. Therefore, he could not have been legally dismissed from service. It is added that the whole exercise was illegal and mala fide.
4. I have given my anxious considerations. The petitioner has accepted the reappointment without any objection, therefore, he was estopped by his conduct to turn round and seek declaration to the effect that he was in service throughout. This is not all. The Labour Court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction on 26-4-1973 while this writ petition was filed on 24-4-1974. This way there is a delay of over one year in making this petition. The same constitutes laches. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in this Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Now coming to the merits the petitioner on the one hand has not challenged the order of his dismissal and on the other hand accepted the same B when he agreed to reappointment. The conduct of the petitioner is that he is not entitled to any discretionary relief in the Constitutional petition.
' The result is that this writ petition is dismissed.