Delhi High Court
Uniion Of India vs Mr. Dev Karan & Ors. on 20 February, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7018/2009
Judgment delivered on: 20th February, 2009
%
Union of India ...... Petitioner.
Through: Mr.Sewa Ram, Advocate.
versus
Mr. Dev Karan & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to
challenge the award dated 31.8.2000 passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in I.D. No.
217/99.
2. Mr. Sewa Ram counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has already regularized the services of
the respondents w.e.f. 12.5.2006 when the vacancies arose.
Counsel further submits that the decision of the petitioner
regularizing the services of respondent nos. 1 and 2 w.e.f
12.5.2009 needs to be declared as valid decision which is in
conformity with the pronouncement of the Apex Court in
Secy. State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi-JT 2006 (4) SC
420. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that cause of
action to file the present petition arose in the year 2007 when
the vacancies arose. Counsel also submits that the
respondents have accepted their regularization in terms of
the directions given by the petitioner without any demur or
objection.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the impugned award.
4. Indisputably, the award by the CGIT was passed
pursuant to the reference made by the Central Government,
Ministry of Labour and in the said award, directions were
given to the petitioner to regularize the services of the
respondents w.e.f. 16.6.98. It was also directed that the
respondents workmen should be paid equal salary with that
of the regular daily rater in the time scale with effect from
their initial employment.
5. The operative para of the impugned judgment is as
under:
".........both the workmen should be given
regularization in their services w.e.f. 16.6.98 and
they should also be paid equal salary with that of
the regular daily rater in the time scale w.e.f. their
initial employment. In the case of Shri Dev Karan
he should be given time scale of Rs.750-940 raised
to Rs. 2550-3200 w.e.f the relevant dates......"
6. The said award was not challenged by the
petitioner and infact vide office orders dated 6.6.2007 and
14.1.2008 the said impugned award dated 31.8.2000 was
complied with by the petitioner. As per the counsel for the
petitioner the vacancies arose only on 12th May 2006 and
therefore, the award could not be complied with by the
petitioner earlier. Counsel for the petitioner states that the
respondents are now before the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) New Delhi seeking enforcement of
the said award. I am not inclined to issue any notice in the
present writ petition as the present petition is bad on account
of delay and laches. I am not convinced that simply because
the respondents are now seeking enforcement of the said
award that should have activated the petitioner to challenge
the award after a lapse of a period of nine years. The
petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of any recent
pronouncement of the Apex Court as the position of law never
remains static and keeps changing. The law being the
developing field and based on changed position of law, no
party can be allowed to challenge the validity of the order
which was passed long ago. If the petitioner was serious to
challenge the findings of the award based on the fact that
no vacancies were existing, the petitioner was well within its
right to challenge the said award within the reasonable time.
There is no explanation much less the plausible explanation
given by the petitioner to file the present petition after such a
long and inexplicable delay. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. District Board,
Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598, observed as under:
"13. The rule which says that the Court may not enquire
into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of
practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion.
Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all
depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and
the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The principle
on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or
delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to
others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should
not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable
explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay
in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ
court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of
time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The
test is not to physical running of time. Where the
circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality
which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of
laches."
7. The only ground taken by the petitioner is that
since the vacancies arose w.e.f 12th May 2006, therefore, the
petitioner has implemented the award based on the vacancy
position. The delay and laches clearly stares on the face of
the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with
the impugned award.
8. Dismissed.
February 20, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
MG
