Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Delhi High CourtIndian Cases

M.C.D. vs Delhi Nagar Nigam Work Karamchari … on 17 October 2003

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Delhi High Court
M.C.D. vs Delhi Nagar Nigam Work, Karamchari … on 17 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)136PLR60, 2004(3)SLJ393(DELHI)
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. The conduct of the case by the petitioner before the Labour Court shows continued indifference to the fate of the case in the Labour Court because in spite of several opportunities given including the imposition of costs it chose to remain absent leading to exparte proceedings. Even thereafter the Award dated 20th October, 2001 is sought to be challenged in this Court belatedly by filing a writ petition on 14th October, 2003 about 2 years later.

2. The explanation given for the delay is as follows;-

“The Management received the copy of the award with the legal opinion, on 6.8,2002. After receiving the copy of the award the management immediately collected all the documents and forwarded the file to the higher up authorities for the approval to challenge the award. The petitioner Corporation being a Government Department and there are hundreds of cases and each case has to pass through various channels before approval and hence there has been delay in coming before this Hon’ble Court. The said delay as neither intentional nor deliberate but is bona fide and is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice”.
3. Apart from the fact that there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay from the date of award, i.e., 20th of October, 2001 up to 6th August, 2002, even the explanation given for the delay thereafter is wholly unsatisfactory and seeks to justify the institu tional indifference and lethargy. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. This apart the matter remained ex parte in the Court below in spite of the opportunities given to the petitioner. Even on this ground on interference is war ranted. Furthermore there is no avenue at all for promotion for the workmen represented through respondent No. I/Union herein as averred by them before the Labour Court and not denied by the petitioner. Even on merits thus there is no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed in liming both on merits and laches.