Delhi High Court
Sh. Suresh Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 19 May, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
+*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CMs No.6632&6633/2009 in W.P.(C) 7187/2003
% Date of decision: 19th May, 2010
SH. SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Robin Majumdar, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether 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 No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner has filed these applications for restoration of the writ
petition dismissed in default on 26th September, 2006 and for condonation
of delay of 929 days in applying for restoration. Notice of the applications
was issued on 2nd September, 2009 to the contesting respondent no.2 M/s
Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences.
However, the petitioner applicant did not take steps for service of the
notice. Another opportunity was given to the petitioner applicant on 11 th
December, 2009 to serve the respondent no.2. The petitioner however
again did not take any steps. On 16th March, 2010 none appeared for the
petitioner applicant before the Court; nevertheless the Court gave another
opportunity to the petitioner to serve notice of the applications on the
contesting respondent no.2 by all modes including through counsel /
nominated counsel for the contesting respondent no.2 returnable for today.
It was also clarified that upon failure of the petitioner, the applications shall
be dismissed for non prosecution.
2. The petitioner applicant again did not take any steps save for filing
the process fee which was returned under objection. The petitioner
applicant did not remove the objections. Also, no steps were taken for
taking the notice dasti or for serving the nominated counsel.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applications are liable to be
dismissed for non prosecution.
4. It is also found that Rule had not been issued in the writ petition and
only a notice to show cause had been issued. In the circumstances
notwithstanding the negligence of the petitioner, the counsel for the
petitioner has also been asked to address on the merits of the writ petition.
5. The petitioner workman by this petition impugns the award dated
15th July, 2003 of the Labour Court holding that the services of the
petitioner were terminated by the respondent no.2 as a result of non
renewal of contract of employment and that the same did not amount to
retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act. The Labour
Court thus did not find the petitioner workman entitled to any relief.
6. The Labour Court found that the appointment of the petitioner
workman with the respondent no.2 was ad-hoc, contractual and for a fixed
period of two months or till regular appointees joined duty whichever is
earlier and was terminable without assigning any reason. The Labour
Court held that the petitioner workman had miserably failed to show that he
was working with the respondent no.2 continuously since 4 th September,
1990 as claimed by him and on the contrary found that the respondent no.2
had established the appointment of the petitioner workman for a period of
two months only.
7. The aforesaid findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the writ
jurisdiction. The petitioner workman has been unable to show that the
view taken by the Labour Court is perverse or a view which no reasonable
person could have reached or that the same is contrary to the record. There
is therefore even otherwise no merit in the petition. The writ petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
19th May, 2010
gsr
