Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Delhi High CourtIndian Cases

D.D.A. vs Its Work Asst. Thru. D.D.A. Mazd. on 22 October 2003

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Delhi High Court
D.D.A. vs Its Work Asst. Thru. D.D.A. Mazd. on 22 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 108(2003)DLT731, 2004(2)SLJ362(DELHI)
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal
JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition, filed in this Court on 25th April, 2003 challenges the Award dated 21st September, 2000, passed in I.D.No.140/96.

2.The matter was first listed on 12th May, 2003 and the time was obtained to file an affidavit, explaining laches which was not filed on 14th July, 2003. Another opportunity was given on 14th July, 2003 and the matter was directed to be listed on 20th October, 2003. On 20th October, 2003, the affidavit was still not filed. Today, the matter is being listed and an affidavit-cum-application for condensation of delay has been handed over in Court today which is taken on record. Registry is directed to number and register the said application.

3.A perusal of the affidavit/application demonstrates that according to the petitioner, the matter was entrusted to Shri V.K. Rai, Advocate and Shri K.K. Malviya, panel lawyer to defend the case before the Labour Court where the matter proceeded ex-parte. However, significantly paragraph 5 of the said application/affidavit clearly states that on 21st January, 2002, the petitioner received the notice from the Labour Department, Implementation Cell, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the implementation of the award. Thus it is clear that as on 21st January, 2002 the petitioner was aware of the fact that an award has been passed. Thereafter the affidavit relates to hearing before the Implementation Cell but there is no explanation whatsoever why the award was to challenged within a reasonable time from 21st January, 2002 and the writ petition was only filed on 25th April, 2003.

4.Para 8 of the application/affidavit says that on receipt of the warrants of attachment, the legal cell of the petitioner department vetted the matter and advised that the writ petition should be filed in this Court. No date of vetting is given. The only date is given of filing of the petition before this Court. I am of the view that the explanation given for the delay at least from 21st January, 2002 till 25th April, 2003 is wholly unworthy of any credence and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in liming on account of laches.