Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Smt. Baso Devi on 22 April, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.19105/2005
Date of Decision : 22.04.2009
Municipal Corporation of Delhi ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate
Versus
Smt. Baso Devi ...... Respondent
Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 21st June, 2001
passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.-III in ID No. 172/1996 in case
titled The Management of M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs.
Baso Devi. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Tribunal has
held that Smt. Baso Devi is entitled to be regularized on the post of
Ward Aya in the proper scale from her initial date of appointment i.e.
8th September, 1983 and as a consequence of the same, she is entitled
for her wages at par with regular employees from her date of
appointment and other consequential benefits. It has been further
held that she is entitled to hold the residential accommodation allotted
to her retired husband.
2. The petitioner/ management feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
award has filed the present writ petition. Notice to show cause was
issued on 30th September, 2005 and on the same date the operation of
the impugned order was stayed and it has continued thereafter.
3. The respondent/workman has filed its counter affidavit and in
the counter affidavit one of the preliminary objections which has been
raised is regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground that the writ is highly belated and hit by laches. For this
purpose, the respondent/workman has averred that the award was
passed on 21st June, 2001 which was published on 1st March, 2002
and became enforceable from 31st March, 2002. While as the writ
petition has been filed on 22nd September, 2005 and thus there is an
inordinate delay of more than three years in challenging the award
which has been totally unexplained in the writ petition.
4. A perusal of the order sheet shows that after the notice was
issued repeated adjournments were taken on behalf of the petitioner.
Firstly to file rejoinder and yet the same was not filed.
5. On the last date of hearing none was present on behalf of the
petitioner and even on a date prior to that the matter was adjourned
on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today also
the learned proxy counsel Mr. Ayush Gupta prays for an adjournment
on the ground that the main counsel Ms. P.L. Gautam is out of station
as his brother is contesting the election.
6. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending since 2005
and for one reason or the other the same is being adjourned, there is
absolutely no justification for adjourning the matter further,
accordingly, the request for adjournment is disallowed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent as well as
the learned proxy counsel for the petitioner and have also gone
through the record carefully.
8. The writ petition is ex-facie inordinately delayed and hit by
laches. This is on account of the fact that the award is passed on 21st
June, 2001 granting the benefit of regularization and the
consequential benefits thereof to the respondent/workman on the said
date. The award is published on 1st March, 2002 and becomes
enforceable on 31st March, 2002. Even if the period for filing the writ
is reckoned from 31st March, 2002, the writ petition has been filed
only on 22nd September, 2005 that is after expiry of 3 ½ years. There
is absolutely no justification given by the petitioner which is a
statutory body as to why it kept sleeping over the matter for such a
long period of time and did not assail the award earlier. Since there is
no explanation given by the petitioner, therefore, the present writ
petition is trying to rake up the stale claim which is barred by
inordinate delay and laches.
9. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the
respondent/workman at the bar that the petitioner has already
recovered the differential of the arrears of pay from the date of her
appointment till the order dated 31.3.2003 in terms of the award. To
that extent the award also stands implemented. Keeping in view the
aforesaid facts, I feel that this is a writ without any merit and the same
is accordingly dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 22, 2009
KP
