Smt Sharda And Others vs Delhi State Civil Supply ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2831 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 24 July, 2009


# Smt. Sharda & Ors.
                                                   ..... PETITIONERS
!                  Through: Mr. S.K. Anand, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$ Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd.
                                                       .....RESPONDENT

^                  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) CM No.8997/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009

This is an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of

delay of 15 days in refiling of this petition.

Delay in refiling of the petition is condoned.

This application stands disposed of.

CM No.8996/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009

This is an application under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC filed by petitioner

No. 1 for her appointment as guardian ad litem for her minor children

being petitioners No. 2 to 4 in the present petition. It is stated that

petitioner No. 1 being the mother of petitioners No. 2 to 4 has no adverse

interest to her minor children.

Having regard to the averments contained in this application and

the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner

No. 1 is appointed as guardian ad litem for her minor children for the

purpose of the present petition.

This application also stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009 & CM No.8995/2009 (for stay)

This writ petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased workman

(the petitioners herein) is directed against an interim order dated

17.01.2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator rejecting their

application for summoning the personal file of the workman.

I have gone through the impugned order and have considered the

submissions made by the petitioners' learned counsel.

The petitioners wanted to summon the personal file of the

deceased workman to prove that the deceased workman had submitted

three medical certificates on 28.10.1996 to justify his absence on medical

grounds for the period from 12.03.1996 to 25.10.1996. The case of the

petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased workman in their

application filed for summoning of personal file of the deceased workman

was that the deceased workman had given three medical certificates for

the period of his absence and those medical certificates are available in

his personal file. The court below in its impugned order has observed the

conduct of the petitioners that they are not allowing the case to proceed

further. It is mentioned that the case before the court below was fixed for

final arguments on 25.04.2005 and thereafter the petitioners have been

taking adjournments on one or the other pretext and filed the application

for summoning of personal file to further delay the proceedings. Even if

we ignore the conduct of the petitioners for delaying the matter before

the court below, still the personal file of the deceased workman sought to

be summoned by them was not required because it is clear from the

impugned order that the management has not disputed that the medical

certificates for the period from 12.03.1996 to 25.10.1996 given by the

deceased workman are available in his personal file but the case of the

management to oppose the summoning of the personal file of the

workman was that those medical certificates were given by the deceased

workman after 25.10.1996. The petitioners in their present writ petition

also admit that the medical certificates were given by the deceased

workman on 28.10.1996 much after 21.06.1996 when his name was

struck of from the rolls of the management. In that view of the matter,

the personal file of the deceased workman was not required for

adjudicating the industrial dispute raised by the deceased workman

during his life time regarding striking of his name from the rolls of the

management.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in

the impugned order which may call for an interference by this Court in

exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

JULY 24, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'