Mrs. Mohini Sethi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3663 Del

                                                                                        #58
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       LPA 557/2010

MRS. MOHINI SETHI                              ..... Appellant
                                  Through      Mr. Hemant Choudhri with
                                               Mr. S.W. Haider and Mr. Amit
                                               Mishra, Advocates

                         versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
                   Through   Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, learned
                             counsel for R-1 to 5.
                             Mr. Aseem Malhotra, Advocate
                             for R-8 to 20.

%                                     Date of Decision : 6th August, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers 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.


                                  JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

CM 13993/2010

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM 13995/2010

This is an application for condonation of delay of 49 days in

filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 49 days in

filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

LPA 558/2010 & CM 13994/2010

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment dated 13th May, 2010 passed in WP(C) 8439/2008 whereby

the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the Appellant's

writ petition.

2. The Appellant-Petitioner had contended in the above writ petition

that she is a senior citizen, over 70 years of age, who had never carried

out any trade or business. She had further stated that she was never

connected, in any manner whatsoever, with M/s. R.T. Export -

respondent no. 7 herein and accordingly, she prayed for setting aside

the recovery certificates dated 7th January, 2008 and 9th January, 2008.

3. From the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Single

Judge had perused the labour court's record and found that the

Appellant-Petitioner had executed two letters of authorities dated 30th

July, 1997 and 25th February, 2004 authorising an advocate and United

Employers Welfare Association to represent her before the labour court.

Accordingly, as the learned Single Judge was of the view that the case

set up by the Appellant-Petitioner was at variance with the labour

court's record, he dismissed the writ petition.

4. Mr. Hemant Choudhri, learned counsel for the Appellant

submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate various

documents placed on record before respondent no. 2 herein, which

clearly showed that there were individuals, other than Appellant, who

were connected with the concern, M/s. R.T. Export. He further

submitted that the signatures on the authority letters relied upon by the

learned Single Judge, were forged and fabricated.

5. Keeping in view the serious allegation of forgery made by the

Appellant-Petitioner's counsel and the adverse consequences that flow

from the impugned order and the fact that the impugned order was

passed in the absence of the Appellant-Petitioner's counsel, we are of

the view that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set

aside, subject to payment of Rs. 75,000/- to all the respondents-

workmen and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration. The

costs shall be paid to all the respondent-workmen through counsel

within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that in case

the aforesaid costs are not paid within the stipulated period, the writ

petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

6. We further make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion

on merits of the case. List the matter before learned Single Judge on

13th September, 2010.

7. With the aforesaid directions, present appeal and application

stand disposed of.

Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 6, 2010 rn