Shri Ram Kumar vs Dirctorate Of Education Govt. Of ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1942 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Writ Petition (Civil) No.8815/2009

                                        Date of Decision : 08.5.2009

SHRI RAM KUMAR                                   ...... Petitioner
                                       Through : Mr.Anuj Aggarwal,
                                       Advocate

                                  Versus

DIRCTORATE OF EDUCATION GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
                                      ...... Respondent
                         Through : Nemo.

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. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the record. The petitioner in the present writ petition

has challenged the award dated 25.9.2007 passed by the learned

Labour Court-XVII in ID No.1/2006 in case titled The Workman

Sh.Ram Kumar Vs. The Management of M/s Directorate of

Education. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour

Court had held that the services of the petitioner was not

terminated illegally or unjustifiably and consequently the

reference was answered in negative.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a reference was

made. The learned Labour Court on 26.12.2000 has framed the

following terms of reference:-

"Whether the services of Sh.Ram Kumar have been terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. Pursuant to the said reference statement of claim was filed

by the petitioner stating that he was employed in the department

of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi/respondent herein on

21.1.1999 and was posted at Government Senior Secondary

School, Village Chilla as Chowkidar. It is alleged that his

services were terminated on 2.12.1999 by a memo issued to him

by the Deputy Director of Education, East District under the

guise of simple termination under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the

Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The

petitioner stated that since he had rendered the duty for more

than 240 days continuously and his services were not restored

despite demand notice dated 8th May, 2000 consequently he got

the reference made to the learned Labour Court through

appropriate Government. The respondent/Management filed the

written statement and contested the claim. A preliminary

objection was taken in the written statement that the reference is

not maintainable and on merits, it was stated that the services of

the petitioner were terminated on account of having filed bogus

documents.

4. The petitioner examined himself in support of his case

while as the Management examined the Deputy Education Officer

Mr.S.K.Gupta as MW1. After analyzing the evidence and the

case law, the learned Labour Court rejected the preliminary

objection of the respondent /Management with regard to issue

No.1 that it was not an industry. However, on the second issue

regarding the employment having been procured on the basis of

bogus documents, the learned Labour Court agreed with the

views of the Management and accordingly, answered the

reference in negative. The award has been passed on 25.9.2007

as it was notified on 24.3.2008 and became enforceable on

23.4.2008.

5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award has

preferred the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the

petitioner along with the writ has filed an application bearing CM

No.6104/2009 seeking condonation of delay under Section 151

of the CPC wherein it was averred that since the petitioner was a

poor workman and remained unemployed from the date of his

termination of his services i.e. 02.12.1999, therefore, he did not

have sufficient funds available with him to challenge the award.

On the basis of this fact the delay is sought to be justified.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by

counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The date of

the award being as 25.9.2007 and the publication on 24.3.2008

is not in dispute. Though the law of limitation is not applicable

to the writ petitions but the principles of remedy being barred on

account of inordinate delay and laches is still applicable to the

writs. The petitioner had allegedly rendered services of 240 days

and the award having been passed on 25.9.2007 if the petitioner

still felt aggrieved from the said award, he ought to have assailed

the same at the earliest possible opportunity without even

waiting for publication. It seems that the petitioner accepted the

award and belatedly has woken up to challenge the same now.

The inordinate delay is sought to be explained and he did not

have sufficient resources available with him. It has not been

explained by him in the application, if he did not have sufficient

resources then how come he after a lapse of nearly two years he

has suddenly woken up to challenge the award and wherefrom

the resources got. This plea of the petitioner does not seem to be

bonafide and accordingly, is not accepted. Normally what has

been seen in such cases the union bargains with the employees

and funds them and if they succeed the spoils are shared.

7. Since the petitioner has acquiesced to the award and did

not challenge the same within the reasonable time, I am of the

view that the writ petition is barred by inordinate delay and

laches and accordingly, the same is deserves to be dismissed in

limine. Even on merits, the petitioner has been held to have

obtained employed on the basis of bogus documents. Therefore,

that fact also cannot be ignored and a wrong cannot be

perpetuated.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition

is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 08, 2009 RN