Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Ranbir Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 2307 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           LPA No. 268 of 2009 & C.M. No. 8116/2009
        DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                    ..... Appellant
                         Through:  Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
                         Versus
        SH. RANBIR SINGH                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:  None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                    ORDER

% 28.05.2009

1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned

single Judge dated 11th February, 2009. Briefly stated the facts are

as follows:-

2. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition)

challenged the Award dated 4th July, 2000 passed by the Industrial

Tribunal declining the approval to the appellant under Section 33

sub-clause (2) sub-clause (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondents (original

respondents in the writ petition) took a preliminary objection to the

very maintainability of the writ petition on ground of delay and

latches. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the order

declining the approval was passed by the Tribunal as far back as on

4th July, 2000 and the writ petition had been preferred by the

appellant in December, 2005, without making any endeavour to

explain the delay. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the

petition holding that parties cannot avail of their remedies as and

when they so wish. The learned single Judge further observed that

the writ petition was preferred by the appellant on 2nd December,

2005; apparently when the Tribunal had already passed an Award

dated 30th September, 2005, in favour of the respondents in other

case i.e. I.D. No. 149 of 2001 holding the action on the part of the

appellant terminating the services of the respondents as not being

legal and justified. In the said Award, the Tribunal observed that the

Management did not prefer any appeal, revision or writ petition

against the order dated 4th July, 2000, and that was the reason that

the writ petition was filed immediately after passing of the Award

dated 30th September, 2005.

3. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned single

Judge. Parties are required to pursue their remedies diligently and

within a reasonable period of time. In the present case, the appellant

is clearly guilty of unreasonable delay without any explanation for the

same. The delay is of five long years without any reasonable or

cogent explanation for the same. In the absence of any plausible

explanation given by the appellant for the long delay, the learned

single Judge rightly declined to exercise his extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single

Judge to warrant any interference. The appeal is accordingly

dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 28, 2009/sb