Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 10499/2009
% Date of Decision: 29 July, 2009
# Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Davinder Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ Shri Nem Singh & Anr.
.....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? YES
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
CM No. 9251/2009 (Exemption) in WP(C) No.10499/2009
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) No.10499/2009 & CM No. 9250/2009 (for stay)
This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is
directed against an award dated 28.04.2003 passed by Mr. M.K. Gupta,
then Presiding Officer Labour Court IX, Delhi directing reinstatement of
the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with 50% back wages.
2 Heard.
3 The workman (respondent No. 1 herein) was appointed as Pattern
Master by the petitioner in March, 1991 at a salary of Rs.5,500/- per
month. His services were terminated w.e.f. 12.11.1996. Aggrieved by his
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 1 of 4
termination, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the
appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The
workman filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court in which he
alleged termination of his services by the management (the petitioner
herein) w.e.f. 12.11.1996. However, the petitioner in its written
statement filed before the Labour Court took a plea that the workman
had abandoned its service of his own w.e.f. 14.11.1996. The issue for
adjudication in the reference before the Labour Court was whether the
workman had abandoned the services of the petitioner of his own or was
he terminated by the petitioner management? The Labour Court gave
opportunity to both the parties to prove their respective stands but Mr.
Anil Kumar Singhal, authorized representative of the petitioner
management withdrew himself from the proceedings on 23.04.2003 and
for that reason, the management was proceeded ex-parte by the Labour
Court on that day. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence produced
by the workman before it passed the impugned award directing
reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages except full back
wages for the period from 01.10.1996 to 12.11.1996. The period for
which full back wages were awarded by the Labour Court is the period for
which the workman had actually worked with the petitioner management
and was not paid his salary by the management. This point that he was
not paid his salary for the period from 01.10.1996 to 12.11.1996 has
been proved by the workman before the Labour Court by proving that the
management had given a cheque towards wages for the aforesaid period
which was dishonoured when presented for encashment.
4 The award challenged in the present writ petition was passed by
the Labour Court way back on 23.04.2003. This petition has been filed by
the management after more than six years of passing of the said award.
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 2 of 4
5 Mr. Davinder Singh learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner management contends that there is no delay on the part of
the petitioner in filing of the present writ petition because according to
him, this petition was filed by him in about a year's time after the
petitioner came to know in July, 2008 about passing of the impugned
award. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner came to
know about the impugned award for the first time in July, 2008 when he
received warrants of attachment issued pursuant to the impugned award.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also
argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned delay of even 10-
12 years in filing of the writ petition and he has placed reliance on two
Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. & Ors. VS.
judgments of the Supreme Court in
Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong & Ors. reported as (1988) 1 SCC
401 and Suresh Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (2004) 13 SCC 563 in
support of his above contention. In my view none of these two judgments
is applicable to the facts of this case. Each case has to be decided on its
own merits. It is true that no limitation is prescribed for filing of a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though no limitation is
prescribed for filing of writ petition, but a litigant seeking to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court against a decision of the
Industrial Adjudicator must file the petition within a reasonable time and
in case there is delay in filing of the petition, some satisfactory
explanation for such delay must be given by the writ petitioner.
6 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner could not file the present writ petition
earlier because he was suffering from severe depression right from 1997
onwards and in support of his said contention, he has referred to the
medical prescriptions which are at pages 54 to 69 of the paper book. I
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 3 of 4
have gone through copies of these medical prescriptions and on going
through the same, I do not find that the alleged illness of the petitioner
was of such a nature that he was prevented from filing the present writ
petition, if he was aggrieved from the impugned award passed about six
years back. In my considered opinion, the writ petition is hopelessly
barred by delay and latches and the petitioner has not given any
satisfactory explanation to show why he took more than six years in filing
of the said petition.
7 The contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the
impugned award for the first time in July, 2008 or that his earlier counsel
Mr. Anil Kumar Singhal has withdrawn himself from the proceedings
pending before the Labour Court without following the procedure for
discharge does not appeal to my conscious. It is difficult to ram down the
throat that a management defending a reference before the Labour Court
would sleep over between 2003 when his counsel had withdrawn himself
from the proceedings in the Labour Court and July, 2008 when he
allegedly came to know about passing of the impugned award. A prudent
litigant is expected to keep a tab on the progress of his case pending in
the Court. The contention that the petitioner came to know about the
impugned award for the first time in July, 2008 appears to be an
afterthought and seems to have been taken to give an impression as if
the delay in filing of the writ petition was only of one year.
8 For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed as barred
by delay and latches. Stay application is also dismissed for the same
reasons.
JULY 29, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 4 of 4
+ W.P.(C) No. 10499/2009
% Date of Decision: 29 July, 2009
# Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Davinder Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ Shri Nem Singh & Anr.
.....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? YES
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
CM No. 9251/2009 (Exemption) in WP(C) No.10499/2009
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) No.10499/2009 & CM No. 9250/2009 (for stay)
This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is
directed against an award dated 28.04.2003 passed by Mr. M.K. Gupta,
then Presiding Officer Labour Court IX, Delhi directing reinstatement of
the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with 50% back wages.
2 Heard.
3 The workman (respondent No. 1 herein) was appointed as Pattern
Master by the petitioner in March, 1991 at a salary of Rs.5,500/- per
month. His services were terminated w.e.f. 12.11.1996. Aggrieved by his
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 1 of 4
termination, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the
appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The
workman filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court in which he
alleged termination of his services by the management (the petitioner
herein) w.e.f. 12.11.1996. However, the petitioner in its written
statement filed before the Labour Court took a plea that the workman
had abandoned its service of his own w.e.f. 14.11.1996. The issue for
adjudication in the reference before the Labour Court was whether the
workman had abandoned the services of the petitioner of his own or was
he terminated by the petitioner management? The Labour Court gave
opportunity to both the parties to prove their respective stands but Mr.
Anil Kumar Singhal, authorized representative of the petitioner
management withdrew himself from the proceedings on 23.04.2003 and
for that reason, the management was proceeded ex-parte by the Labour
Court on that day. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence produced
by the workman before it passed the impugned award directing
reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages except full back
wages for the period from 01.10.1996 to 12.11.1996. The period for
which full back wages were awarded by the Labour Court is the period for
which the workman had actually worked with the petitioner management
and was not paid his salary by the management. This point that he was
not paid his salary for the period from 01.10.1996 to 12.11.1996 has
been proved by the workman before the Labour Court by proving that the
management had given a cheque towards wages for the aforesaid period
which was dishonoured when presented for encashment.
4 The award challenged in the present writ petition was passed by
the Labour Court way back on 23.04.2003. This petition has been filed by
the management after more than six years of passing of the said award.
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 2 of 4
5 Mr. Davinder Singh learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner management contends that there is no delay on the part of
the petitioner in filing of the present writ petition because according to
him, this petition was filed by him in about a year's time after the
petitioner came to know in July, 2008 about passing of the impugned
award. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner came to
know about the impugned award for the first time in July, 2008 when he
received warrants of attachment issued pursuant to the impugned award.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also
argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned delay of even 10-
12 years in filing of the writ petition and he has placed reliance on two
Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. & Ors. VS.
judgments of the Supreme Court in
Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong & Ors. reported as (1988) 1 SCC
401 and Suresh Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (2004) 13 SCC 563 in
support of his above contention. In my view none of these two judgments
is applicable to the facts of this case. Each case has to be decided on its
own merits. It is true that no limitation is prescribed for filing of a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though no limitation is
prescribed for filing of writ petition, but a litigant seeking to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court against a decision of the
Industrial Adjudicator must file the petition within a reasonable time and
in case there is delay in filing of the petition, some satisfactory
explanation for such delay must be given by the writ petitioner.
6 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner could not file the present writ petition
earlier because he was suffering from severe depression right from 1997
onwards and in support of his said contention, he has referred to the
medical prescriptions which are at pages 54 to 69 of the paper book. I
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 3 of 4
have gone through copies of these medical prescriptions and on going
through the same, I do not find that the alleged illness of the petitioner
was of such a nature that he was prevented from filing the present writ
petition, if he was aggrieved from the impugned award passed about six
years back. In my considered opinion, the writ petition is hopelessly
barred by delay and latches and the petitioner has not given any
satisfactory explanation to show why he took more than six years in filing
of the said petition.
7 The contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the
impugned award for the first time in July, 2008 or that his earlier counsel
Mr. Anil Kumar Singhal has withdrawn himself from the proceedings
pending before the Labour Court without following the procedure for
discharge does not appeal to my conscious. It is difficult to ram down the
throat that a management defending a reference before the Labour Court
would sleep over between 2003 when his counsel had withdrawn himself
from the proceedings in the Labour Court and July, 2008 when he
allegedly came to know about passing of the impugned award. A prudent
litigant is expected to keep a tab on the progress of his case pending in
the Court. The contention that the petitioner came to know about the
impugned award for the first time in July, 2008 appears to be an
afterthought and seems to have been taken to give an impression as if
the delay in filing of the writ petition was only of one year.
8 For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed as barred
by delay and latches. Stay application is also dismissed for the same
reasons.
JULY 29, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'
W.P.(C) No.10499/2009 Page 4 of 4