Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Delhi High CourtIndian Cases

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kamleshwar Dubey on 20 October 2003

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Delhi High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kamleshwar Dubey on 20 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003VIIAD(DELHI)589, 107(2003)DLT634, 2003(71)DRJ396, 2004(2)SLJ312(DELHI)
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal
JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. This writ petition challenges the award dated 23rd January, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal which allowed an application filed by the respondent under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for fully implementing the decree dated 13th October, 1981 passed in the Civil Suit No. 233/1975 filed by the respondent.

4. The conduct of the case shows shows that the petitioner, Union of India through Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Firozepur has resisted and delayed by their obstructionist tactics the compliance of the orders of various courts. There have been several rounds of litigations in this Court which demonstrate that the petitioner has been obdurately and unfairly resisting the claim of the respondent No.1. In 1981, a civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in the following terms by the Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi:

“In view of the above, I decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that oral dismissal on 29th May, 1974 of the plaintiff is illegal, void and inoperative and is nullity. The plaintiff continue to be in service and is entitled to all service benefits.”
5. It is not in dispute that the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment dated 13th October, 1981 was dismissed with costs by the judgment dated 27th September, 1983 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The second appeal against the order dated 27th September, 1983 before this Court was dismissed by this Court on 8th August, 1984 and special leave petition against the order of this Court in second appeal was dismissed on 20th January, 1986. It is not in dispute in this Court that the decree dated 13th October, 1981 was not stayed by any Court. In spite of the aforesaid fact and the dismissal of the special leave on 20th January, 1986 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner still resisted the implementation of the decree dated 13th October, 1981 in spite of notices dated 10th August, 1987, 15th May, 1988, 21st November, 1988, 5th March, 1989, 24th March, 1990 and 16th April, 1990 upon it served by the respondent. The respondent was thereafter compelled to file an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for implementation of the decree dated 13th October, 1981 and by the judgment dated 7th August, 1985, an order was passed in favor of the respondent. The said order was not complied with leading to filing of an appeal by the petitioner before the Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which appeal was dismissed on 28th March, 1987. The Additional District Judge had directed deposit of the entire amount with the Competent Authority which was eventually done.

6. In spite of the dismissal of the appeals, the Competent Authority did not make payment to the respondent leading to the filing of CWP NO. 1042/87 by the respondent, wherein the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order in favor of the respondent.

“The entire amount in dispute be paid to the petitioner (the respondent herein) forthwith”
7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed CWP No. 1705/1987 challenging the order dated 7th August, 1985 of the Competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. By the judgment dated 12th August, 1987, the said writ petition was dismissed with costs by the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment . Thus the tortuous course of litigation adopted by the petitioner to thwart the lawful claim of the respondent is amply demonstrated by the above facts.

8. It is also not in dispute that the decree dated 13th October, 1981 was eventually purportedly complied with only on 17th April, 1990 by giving only fresh appointment to the petitioner which led to the impugned order upon the respondent invoking jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Significantly it is not disputed that even though there was no interim order staying the operation of the decree dated 13th October, 1981, it was only complied with more than 4 and a half years after the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20th January, 1986. I am satisfied that the petitioner has been persistently and obdurately resisting the orders passed by various Courts. Thus it is demonstrated eloquently that it is dis-entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of its inequitable conduct. In particular at least after the dismissal of special leave petition on 20th January, 1986 the petitioner’s delay in compliance of the order till 17th April, 1990 shows complete disregard to the orders passed by various courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even the present writ petition is directed against the order passed under Section 33(C)(2) for full implementation of the decree dated 13th October, 1981. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as this Court on account of the petitioner’s conduct does not want to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

9. The amount deposited in this Court shall be released by the Registry of this Court to the respondent through his counsel on or before 7th November, 2003.

10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.