Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Tara Balmiki
1997 Latest Caselaw 134 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

(1) By the impugned award dated 7 December, 1993 it was held that the workman is entitled to be treated as a full-time regular Chowkidar w.e.f. from the date of his first appointment and certain other directions were also issued. On 12 April, 1994 learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner does not dispute the regularisation of respondent No. 1 but only disputes the date from which he has been directed to be regularised because giving regularisation with retrospective effect would entail a very heavy financial burden on the petitioner. On 12 September, 1994, this Court directed that letter of regularisation in terms of the award of Industrial Tribunal be given to the respondent w.e.f. the date of award. It was further directed the needful be done within a period of three weeks. More than two years have lapsed since then. On 12 March, 1996 while adjourning the matter on the request of Counsel for the petitioner we directed that in case the order dated 12 September, 1996 is not complied with within a period of two weeks this . Court will have no option but to take a strict view of the matter including initiation of the contempt proceedings. Nearly one year has lapsed even after that order. Learned Counsel for the workman respondent No. 1 Mr. Ashok Aggarwal states that his client has still not been regularised. Learned Counsel for the petitioner again prays for an adjournment on the ground that the case has been entrusted to new Counsel only recently and the said Counsel is not present. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we see hardly any ground to adjourn the matter. In view of the conduct of the petitioner we decline to entertain the writ petition in exercise of our writ jurisdiction.

(2) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.