M/S. K.D. Auto Industries vs Mr. Ram Pratap And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 2731 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 8410/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 20 July, 2009


#M/s K.D. Auto Industries
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Dr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

                                  VERSUS

$ Mr. Ram Pratap & Anr.
                                                        .....RESPONDENTS

^                  Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is

directed against an award dated 16.07.2005 passed by Mr. S.N. Gupta,

POLC X, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 1

herein) with 50% back wages.

2     Heard.

3     This petition seeking to challenge the impugned award has been

filed by the management after about 4 years of passing of the said

award. Though the petitioner has filed an application being CM

No.5289/2009 for condonation of delay in filing of the writ petition but the

said application hardy justify the delay in filing of this petition. The only

ground for condonation of delay taken in the application is that the

petitioner was suffering from financial crises due to closure of his factory

and also undergone major surgery due to which he could not file the

petition in time. This hardly justify the delay on the part of the petitioner.

4 Though no limitation is prescribed for filing of a writ petition against

an impugned award but it does not mean that the petitioner being the

management will sleep over the matter for years and then suddenly

wake up one day and decide to challenge the impugned award at its

sweet will and try to justify the delay on the ground of alleged financial

crises. The petitioner says in the application that he had undergone

major surgery also as a reason for delay in filing of writ petition but

neither the date on which he underwent the alleged surgery nor the

nature of surgery is disclosed in the application. The plea of surgery

taken in the application is not supported by any medical evidence and

therefore I am not inclined to accept the same as a ground for condoning

the delay. In my opinion, this writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay

and latches and cannot be entertained after about four years of the

passing of the impugned award.

5 In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay filed

by the petitioner is dismissed and consequent thereto the main writ

petition as well as stay application also stands dismissed as barred by

delay and latches.

JULY 20, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'