Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sh. S.K. Jayaraman
2003 Latest Caselaw 841 Del

Citation : 2003 Latest Caselaw 841 Del
Judgement Date : 11 August, 2003

Delhi High Court

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sh. S.K. Jayaraman on 11 August, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 VIAD Delhi 325, 106 (2003) DLT 438, 2003 (71) DRJ 651, 2004 (2) SLJ 331 Delhi

Author: M Mudgal

Bench: M Mudgal

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 23rd September, 1998, given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Delhi on a finding that since the respondent No.1 had been working on the post of Caretaker since 1979 the pay-scales applicable to the post of Caretaker be granted to the respondent No.1/workman.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding on the ground that (a) the Medical Officer, Leprosy Home, was not entitled to engage the respondent No.1 as a Caretaker and (b) that in any case from 1st April, 1980 after regularization on the post of Chowkidar, respondent No.1 could not claim the remuneration of a Caretaker. The other pleas relating to the competency of the Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT) to make a reference does not survive and is not pressed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 while defending the Tribunal's award on merits brought to the notice of this Court two significant factors (a) that the award was dated 23rd September, 1998 and the writ petition challenging the award was filed in this Court only on 6th May, 2000. He further says that in the meantime the respondent No.1 has already recovered the amount due to him under the award. He also states that the respondent No.1 has since retired and was also a Leprosy patient and lost both of his arms due to the leprosy. I am satisfied that the writ petition therefore warrants dismissal on laches particularly when there is no explanation whatsoever in the writ petition of the laches in filing the writ petition.

5. Since the amount covered by the impugned Award dated 23rd September, 1998 has already been recovered by the respondent No.1/workman prior to the writ petition a fact which does not find mention in the writ petition, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case including the present plight of the respondent without going into the merits of the averments of the writ petition, the writ petition warrants dismissal on laches. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.